It's an extremely common knock against anyone wanting greater mechanical depth in a given system. "You can already do what you want, just describe [X universal basic option] as being what you want and boom! - you've got what you're looking for!"
Decisions and descriptions that change absolutely nothing about a game aren't real. If a ranger, a barbarian, an amazon, and a knight are all completely identical to each other in every respect, then none of those things actually exist - all you have is the basic Hitty Guy, and the packaging you put on Basic Hitty Guy doesn't matter. Nobody cares about it, not DMs nor players. You're just Hitty Guy, the same as every other Hitty Guy. You're not a ranger, you're not a barbarian, you're not an amazon or a knight or a dragoon or a landsknecht or a man-at-arms or a ronin or a Steppes archer or a banneret or a thane or anything else.
You're just a Hitty Guy. Interchangeable with every other Hitty Guy. And nobody wants to be just a Hitty Guy.
I understand that the game needs to have a broader set of options than old school D&D's firm archetyping, I'm not disputing that, but if your going to add a new class or series of options for a class, it should be something new, not a replication of something that already exists as an option for other classes. For example If a Ranger gets a pet as a sidekick as an option, don't also give that option to the Barbarian and Druid.
Selecting an option in the game should always be a unique element of the game.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Having multiple classes with extra attack, or access to the same or similar proficiency, or multiple classes with the spellcasting feature is a good thing. Not every class needs to be so unique that they share literally nothing in common with other classes. "Fighter knows how to use longswords: Literally no other class can learn longswords" isn't a good policy for class design.
The total sum of their features and traits, in aggregate, should represent something unique as a whole. But they can share elements with other classes. In fact, they just need to.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Role Master and MERP gave everyone the ability to pick and use every skill and spell class. They used a skill point system. But after player for a year or more we learned that is was better to just spend all you points in the few skills your character was designed for and to max them out as fast as possible.
Leave the magic to the casters the healing to the healers and the fighting to the fighters. The Jack-of-all-trades character is great as a loner but not a fully crewed party member.
The problem with Specialists Specializing in point-buy games is that yeah, your specialists can tackle more difficult challenges within their narrow focus. But if you lose the specialist for any reason, you're up shit creek. Wolfpack groups where everybody is crosstrained on everybody else's shit to a basic level are much more resilient in the face of adversity, and also much more fun to play.
I understand that the game needs to have a broader set of options than old school D&D's firm archetyping, I'm not disputing that, but if your going to add a new class or series of options for a class, it should be something new, not a replication of something that already exists as an option for other classes. For example If a Ranger gets a pet as a sidekick as an option, don't also give that option to the Barbarian and Druid.
Selecting an option in the game should always be a unique element of the game.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Having multiple classes with extra attack, or access to the same or similar proficiency, or multiple classes with the spellcasting feature is a good thing. Not every class needs to be so unique that they share literally nothing in common with other classes. "Fighter knows how to use longswords: Literally no other class can learn longswords" isn't a good policy for class design.
The total sum of their features and traits, in aggregate, should represent something unique as a whole. But they can share elements with other classes. In fact, they just need to.
Taking a premise to an extremes as a way to make an argument rarely results in a particularly good discussion.
We are not talking about basic principles like "cast spells" or "makes attacks" or "can use a sword", we are talking about more specific functions (options) that define purpose for a class.
This is exactly what you said. Maybe you didn't mean your words literally? I mean, like, for example you're arguing only Rangers should be allowed to have a pet.
Wholeheartedly disagree. Familiars are a huge thematic addition to spellcasters. Removing them to make Rangers feel more unique is a disservice to the game.
For example, a Rogue who is an expert in finding and disarming traps, this is a specific function, a core purpose of the class. If the Fighter and Wizard can be built to be just as good or better at that function and they have all the same options, that function, that entire premise becomes useless. Why make a Rogue trap expert when anyone can do it? The entire thing stops being special or unique, its just a mundane activity that anyone can do.
Disarming a trap IS a mundane thing anyone can do.
You don't need to be a thief to know how to pick locks. And you don't even need to be a rogue class to be a thief.
I wholeheartedly disagree with your entire premise. Forcing people to play Rogue just so someone in the party can perform some necessary but mundane function like this is super bad for a game system.
Many parties have like 3 to 5 players. And there is considerably more than 5 classes. If you gatekeep some basic functions, basic mundane functions that anyone who wanted to should be able to learn...like. locks, or traps, or whatever other skill. If you gatekeep these basic skills behind a class, then every party of PCs will be just straight up missing basic functions. Unless they all multiclass.
No. That'd be horrible.
If we take that concept to extremes, using your logic of assumption, it would be like every class can do everything and all things are just selectable options, which means that classes are meaningless.. aka a classless system. This is slowly but surely the direction D&D is being designed towards and while that concept might not necessarily be "bad" as a design, being a class - level based system with archetype is a core definition of what D&D is.
You haven't really posed a real objection aside from tradition. Yes, class and level have always existed. Funny thing, I didn't suggest they shouldn't still exist. So this isn't even taking my argument to an extreme, it is just blatant misrepresentation of it.
I suggested better mixing and matching, a revamp of the multiclass system. Everyone can agree the multiclass system is horribly unbalanced and half of it makes no sense from a design standpoint. It was an afterthought. Presented as an optional rule. One D&D is a good opportunity to recognize the fact people largely use multiclassing. It was standard rules in prior editions. They should incorporate it back into the game as a fully fleshed out standard function. One where parts of classes can be picked even if you don't take everything.
How you get from that "get rid of classes and levels" I don't know.
Essentially, what it really boils down to is that multiclassing is too clunky. Why does someone need to fully take every single bard feature to get the ability to Inspire? Can you not imagine a multiclass option for taking only a smaller piece of a different class? Instead of the whole thing?
It seems to me a slightly different framing for multiclassing rules could dramatically open up character concept ideas. Allowing people to really make the character they want to make. Not so strictly confined to a static list of features you get sequentially the same as every other class X has. It makes every character more unique, because their specific combination is their own. Not the same rogue as every other rogue.
Its the same conversation with using spell points rather than the Vancian Magic system, or using health states rather than Hit Points. All those things can also be re-designed, but each of those things sort of define D&D so its not really fitting for the game if the premise of D&D is to continue.
Not the same at all. Not even close.
Does that make sense. Like D&D has some core definitions, things that make it D&D. Classes, Levels, Vancian Magic, Hit Points, Saving Throws... all of these things are part of what make D&D... D&D.
Ok. True. But none of those things tell us why you want Wizards to lose familiars. Or why only Rogues know how traps work. Regardless what the Artificer has to say on the topic, ONLY rogues can know traps and locks? How does that have anything to do with hitpoints making d&d... d&d?
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
It seems like a no-brainer to me that every class should be construct-able by complex system of rules and character options, that each class is some end result of a particular spattering of those chosen options. And represented as the default options for players to choose from so they needn't build their own if they don't want to. But then also offer the complex system used to generate those classes as a more in-depth system for those people who do enjoy tinkering behind the scenes and complex character creation.
Gee, I wonder where someone could have gotten the idea that you want to make a system without classes.
I agree with you on some parts of your argument, but definitely not this one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
"Complex character creation" is what grognards are trying to avoid. BL stated it outright - a party without a rogue should TPK on the first trap it encounters, and that rogue's sole class feature should be "can deal with traps". A character with no features other than "can deal with traps" is real easy to DM for. As is a character whose only class feature is "can damage enemies",and one whose only feature is "can heal allies". The fact that all of these 'characters' are completely dysfunctional notpeople doesn't matter - they're Proper D&D Characters, ready to die to whatever the party didn't have room for in its composition in the first floor of the Evil Dungeon of Evil.
Ok. True. But none of those things tell us why you want Wizards to lose familiars. Or why only Rogues know how traps work. Regardless what the Artificer has to say on the topic, ONLY rogues can know traps and locks? How does that have anything to do with hitpoints making d&d... d&d?
We can agree to disagree on the rest, but you asked a question and I have an answer. Traps are not supposed to be a mundane thing its as simple as that. Neither are survival skills, casting magic spells, making magic items, training animals etc.. Each of these things are supposed to be keys to the success of an adventuring team that delves into the depths of unusual locations as they quest in the remote places in the world. By making those things mundane, modern D&D has made the adventure irrelevant and mundane.
Think about it. What is actually special in a 5e D&D game, can you name anything about any character class that is special and unique? The only difference between characters mechanically speaking is that one can be marginally better at something mundane compared to another character. That is what this watering down of D&D has gotten us.
Sorry its a bit of a tangent but when you said that finding and disarming traps is a mundane activity, it reminded me why playing D&D under 5e rules is so bloody boring as this is kind of exactly the problem... everything that was special about a D&D character is now pretty ordinary and mundane.
...part of this tells me you have never played in an early edition party that doesnt have a thief, but does have a ten foot pole and other items...
Ok. True. But none of those things tell us why you want Wizards to lose familiars. Or why only Rogues know how traps work. Regardless what the Artificer has to say on the topic, ONLY rogues can know traps and locks? How does that have anything to do with hitpoints making d&d... d&d?
We can agree to disagree on the rest, but you asked a question and I have an answer. Traps are not supposed to be a mundane thing its as simple as that. Neither are survival skills, casting magic spells, making magic items, training animals etc.. Each of these things are supposed to be keys to the success of an adventuring team that delves into the depths of unusual locations as they quest in the remote places in the world. By making those things mundane, modern D&D has made the adventure irrelevant and mundane.
Think about it. What is actually special in a 5e D&D game, can you name anything about any character class that is special and unique? The only difference between characters mechanically speaking is that one can be marginally better at something mundane compared to another character. That is what this watering down of D&D has gotten us.
Sorry its a bit of a tangent but when you said that finding and disarming traps is a mundane activity, it reminded me why playing D&D under 5e rules is so bloody boring as this is kind of exactly the problem... everything that was special about a D&D character is now pretty ordinary and mundane.
...part of this tells me you have never played in an early edition party that doesnt have a thief, but does have a ten foot pole and other items...
How else is one supposed to interpret "only rogues should be able to deal with traps" in a post centered on the idea that hard, fixed, highly rigid class boundaries that cannot be bent, stretched, or morphed in any way so as to prevent dilution of class identity?
The idea that D&D something progressing toward a classless system is pretty fairly absurd. I play and love classless systems and D&D, even 5E, is nowhere near those. Niche protection is great, I love niche protection, but I also think there is a spectrum on what constitutes a niche.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
See the thing is that you're not interested in having a discussion, sharing an opinion or having a debate. You are insulting me, making a bunch of bigoted assumptions and gatekeeping the likes of which I haven't seen since the 70's. I took the time to make this post to make a point, but do me a favor when you have an opinion about something I said.. at least have the courtesy of quoting me rather than making up a bunch of BS.
....because yurei is right and so is everyone else, there are mundane things that folks can do, now do them all the same way? maybe not, but there are, and it has been part of dungeons and dragons from the very begining, hence there being old jokes like always needing a ten foot pole, to deal with traps, or other items, or sheep....there have always been things that many can do, class features just make the way they do it unique
and oh yeah, a bard wouldnt be as good as a wizard at being a master of lore and magic, sure they might be a master of lore, and to a lesser extent magic, but the wizards biggest function is its versatility, that far outplays a bards
your examples make no sense, and you continously stand on a hill that is entirely wrong
Ok. True. But none of those things tell us why you want Wizards to lose familiars. Or why only Rogues know how traps work. Regardless what the Artificer has to say on the topic, ONLY rogues can know traps and locks? How does that have anything to do with hitpoints making d&d... d&d?
We can agree to disagree on the rest, but you asked a question and I have an answer. Traps are not supposed to be a mundane thing its as simple as that. Neither are survival skills, casting magic spells, making magic items, training animals etc.. Each of these things are supposed to be keys to the success of an adventuring team that delves into the depths of unusual locations as they quest in the remote places in the world. By making those things mundane, modern D&D has made the adventure irrelevant and mundane.
Think about it. What is actually special in a 5e D&D game, can you name anything about any character class that is special and unique? The only difference between characters mechanically speaking is that one can be marginally better at something mundane compared to another character. That is what this watering down of D&D has gotten us.
Sorry its a bit of a tangent but when you said that finding and disarming traps is a mundane activity, it reminded me why playing D&D under 5e rules is so bloody boring as this is kind of exactly the problem... everything that was special about a D&D character is now pretty ordinary and mundane.
...part of this tells me you have never played in an early edition party that doesnt have a thief, but does have a ten foot pole and other items...
I mean...disagree all you want, but there have always been mundane things that folks can do, to do the same thing as like "find a trap" or, mend a wound.
and yes...a bard will never be the same at mastering magic, as a wizard
Just because they are similar, doesnt make them wrong
Anyone can find a trap. Traps are specifically designed to be found by intruding adventurers. The question is whether the trap is found on the adventurers' terms or the trap's terms.
How else is one supposed to interpret "only rogues should be able to deal with traps" in a post centered on the idea that hard, fixed, highly rigid class boundaries that cannot be bent, stretched, or morphed in any way so as to prevent dilution of class identity?
You could start the conversation by not calling me names, actually quoting me rather than translating my quote's "meaning" to make your desired point by making a bunch of assumptions about the extremes of your own quote and then accusing me of a nonsensical gibberish. Have you ever actually had a conversation with a person before?
See the thing is that you're not interested in having a discussion, sharing an opinion or having a debate. You are insulting me, making a bunch of bigoted assumptions and gatekeeping the likes of which I haven't seen since the 70's. I took the time to make this post to make a point, but do me a favor when you have an opinion about something I said.. at least have the courtesy of quoting me rather than making up a bunch of BS.
Have whatever kind of viewpoint you want to have, but this is just stupid. This kind of dumbassery and these ridiculous accusations are why many people will do anything to avoid an argument on the internet. You are not being attacked. You do not have to be directly quoted every time somebody references something you said, even if how they said it isn't exactly how you said it. You have no reason to start insulting people. If you're really getting mad over this, stop interacting with it. Everybody will understand and nobody will mind. If you aren't getting mad over this, then just stop with this mindset.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I feel like this discussion has descended into purely arguing with each other rather than discussing complexity v simplicity, which is actually an interesting subject.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I feel like this discussion has descended into purely arguing with each other rather than discussing complexity v simplicity, which is actually an interesting subject.
it would be better if the simple arguments could be made more complex. and the more complex arguments simplified.
Then we're back on topic!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's an extremely common knock against anyone wanting greater mechanical depth in a given system. "You can already do what you want, just describe [X universal basic option] as being what you want and boom! - you've got what you're looking for!"
Decisions and descriptions that change absolutely nothing about a game aren't real. If a ranger, a barbarian, an amazon, and a knight are all completely identical to each other in every respect, then none of those things actually exist - all you have is the basic Hitty Guy, and the packaging you put on Basic Hitty Guy doesn't matter. Nobody cares about it, not DMs nor players. You're just Hitty Guy, the same as every other Hitty Guy. You're not a ranger, you're not a barbarian, you're not an amazon or a knight or a dragoon or a landsknecht or a man-at-arms or a ronin or a Steppes archer or a banneret or a thane or anything else.
You're just a Hitty Guy. Interchangeable with every other Hitty Guy. And nobody wants to be just a Hitty Guy.
Please do not contact or message me.
Why would someone else being good at something infringe upon your imagination?
I wholeheartedly disagree. Having multiple classes with extra attack, or access to the same or similar proficiency, or multiple classes with the spellcasting feature is a good thing. Not every class needs to be so unique that they share literally nothing in common with other classes. "Fighter knows how to use longswords: Literally no other class can learn longswords" isn't a good policy for class design.
The total sum of their features and traits, in aggregate, should represent something unique as a whole. But they can share elements with other classes. In fact, they just need to.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Role Master and MERP gave everyone the ability to pick and use every skill and spell class. They used a skill point system.
But after player for a year or more we learned that is was better to just spend all you points in the few skills your character was designed for and to max them out as fast as possible.
Leave the magic to the casters the healing to the healers and the fighting to the fighters. The Jack-of-all-trades character is great as a loner but not a fully crewed party member.
The problem with Specialists Specializing in point-buy games is that yeah, your specialists can tackle more difficult challenges within their narrow focus. But if you lose the specialist for any reason, you're up shit creek. Wolfpack groups where everybody is crosstrained on everybody else's shit to a basic level are much more resilient in the face of adversity, and also much more fun to play.
Please do not contact or message me.
There was no way short of death to lose skills.
And everyone did have the ability to do all the skills they just did not have that high chance.
And the loss of a specialist is the same problem in every game.
This is exactly what you said. Maybe you didn't mean your words literally? I mean, like, for example you're arguing only Rangers should be allowed to have a pet.
Wholeheartedly disagree. Familiars are a huge thematic addition to spellcasters. Removing them to make Rangers feel more unique is a disservice to the game.
Disarming a trap IS a mundane thing anyone can do.
You don't need to be a thief to know how to pick locks. And you don't even need to be a rogue class to be a thief.
I wholeheartedly disagree with your entire premise. Forcing people to play Rogue just so someone in the party can perform some necessary but mundane function like this is super bad for a game system.
Many parties have like 3 to 5 players. And there is considerably more than 5 classes. If you gatekeep some basic functions, basic mundane functions that anyone who wanted to should be able to learn...like. locks, or traps, or whatever other skill. If you gatekeep these basic skills behind a class, then every party of PCs will be just straight up missing basic functions. Unless they all multiclass.
No. That'd be horrible.
You haven't really posed a real objection aside from tradition. Yes, class and level have always existed. Funny thing, I didn't suggest they shouldn't still exist. So this isn't even taking my argument to an extreme, it is just blatant misrepresentation of it.
I suggested better mixing and matching, a revamp of the multiclass system. Everyone can agree the multiclass system is horribly unbalanced and half of it makes no sense from a design standpoint. It was an afterthought. Presented as an optional rule. One D&D is a good opportunity to recognize the fact people largely use multiclassing. It was standard rules in prior editions. They should incorporate it back into the game as a fully fleshed out standard function. One where parts of classes can be picked even if you don't take everything.
How you get from that "get rid of classes and levels" I don't know.
Essentially, what it really boils down to is that multiclassing is too clunky. Why does someone need to fully take every single bard feature to get the ability to Inspire? Can you not imagine a multiclass option for taking only a smaller piece of a different class? Instead of the whole thing?
It seems to me a slightly different framing for multiclassing rules could dramatically open up character concept ideas. Allowing people to really make the character they want to make. Not so strictly confined to a static list of features you get sequentially the same as every other class X has. It makes every character more unique, because their specific combination is their own. Not the same rogue as every other rogue.
Not the same at all. Not even close.
Ok. True. But none of those things tell us why you want Wizards to lose familiars. Or why only Rogues know how traps work. Regardless what the Artificer has to say on the topic, ONLY rogues can know traps and locks? How does that have anything to do with hitpoints making d&d... d&d?
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Gee, I wonder where someone could have gotten the idea that you want to make a system without classes.
I agree with you on some parts of your argument, but definitely not this one.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
"Complex character creation" is what grognards are trying to avoid. BL stated it outright - a party without a rogue should TPK on the first trap it encounters, and that rogue's sole class feature should be "can deal with traps". A character with no features other than "can deal with traps" is real easy to DM for. As is a character whose only class feature is "can damage enemies",and one whose only feature is "can heal allies". The fact that all of these 'characters' are completely dysfunctional notpeople doesn't matter - they're Proper D&D Characters, ready to die to whatever the party didn't have room for in its composition in the first floor of the Evil Dungeon of Evil.
Please do not contact or message me.
...part of this tells me you have never played in an early edition party that doesnt have a thief, but does have a ten foot pole and other items...
Or a herd of sheep.
How else is one supposed to interpret "only rogues should be able to deal with traps" in a post centered on the idea that hard, fixed, highly rigid class boundaries that cannot be bent, stretched, or morphed in any way so as to prevent dilution of class identity?
Please do not contact or message me.
The idea that D&D something progressing toward a classless system is pretty fairly absurd. I play and love classless systems and D&D, even 5E, is nowhere near those. Niche protection is great, I love niche protection, but I also think there is a spectrum on what constitutes a niche.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
....because yurei is right and so is everyone else, there are mundane things that folks can do, now do them all the same way? maybe not, but there are, and it has been part of dungeons and dragons from the very begining, hence there being old jokes like always needing a ten foot pole, to deal with traps, or other items, or sheep....there have always been things that many can do, class features just make the way they do it unique
and oh yeah, a bard wouldnt be as good as a wizard at being a master of lore and magic, sure they might be a master of lore, and to a lesser extent magic, but the wizards biggest function is its versatility, that far outplays a bards
your examples make no sense, and you continously stand on a hill that is entirely wrong
pfft
I mean...disagree all you want, but there have always been mundane things that folks can do, to do the same thing as like "find a trap" or, mend a wound.
and yes...a bard will never be the same at mastering magic, as a wizard
Just because they are similar, doesnt make them wrong
Anyone can find a trap. Traps are specifically designed to be found by intruding adventurers. The question is whether the trap is found on the adventurers' terms or the trap's terms.
Please do not contact or message me.
Have whatever kind of viewpoint you want to have, but this is just stupid. This kind of dumbassery and these ridiculous accusations are why many people will do anything to avoid an argument on the internet. You are not being attacked. You do not have to be directly quoted every time somebody references something you said, even if how they said it isn't exactly how you said it. You have no reason to start insulting people. If you're really getting mad over this, stop interacting with it. Everybody will understand and nobody will mind. If you aren't getting mad over this, then just stop with this mindset.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I feel like this discussion has descended into purely arguing with each other rather than discussing complexity v simplicity, which is actually an interesting subject.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
it would be better if the simple arguments could be made more complex. and the more complex arguments simplified.
Then we're back on topic!