Originally Posted by
mgshamster
I will reply to the request for restatement later on, but to address this first:
I usually agree. Arguments which consist *solely* of quoting logical fallacies are boring; especially when they're used to bully. I did not do that; I presented my own opinions and arguments. Only when my own arguments were twisted to something I did not argue, and then had more points added on to my words with the presumption that they were defacto true (and that defacto presumption used a evidence of the truth) did I point out the fallacies.
I find that *far* more annoying than pointing out fallacies.
In other words, don't twist my words, and I won't point out that you're doing such. Whether in Latin or English.
Now, for the restatement.
Let's use our bard example of swinging from a chandelier to push a guy into the fire.
Sure, a bard can absolutely do that. It's just that a bard is more likely to say, "Why do that, when vicious mockery works from here, does the same damage, uses my best stat, doesn't require a skill I'm not proficient in, imposes disadvantage, and doesn't put me in danger?"
Whereas the fighter will do it because he needs to be right up next to the guy and the chandelier is the quickest way down. Plus, added bonus of fire.
If one has an ability that'll work, why not use it? Why instead risk something questionable when something more certain works?
For the bard, the added benefit isn't necessarily worth the risk of failure. (Although, for the bard, the benefit of "look how awesome I am!" may be worth it no matter how several the risk). For the fighter, the benefit is well worth the risk, because without it he may not even reach the enemy this round. The fighter is forced to use creativity. The bard simply has the option to do it, and if a better alternative is available, why pick the worse of the options? A creative solution isn't necessarily a better solution.
If you have 30 options, you're more likely going to look to your 30 options first to see if anything works, before you try something beyond those options. A druid is more likely to misty step than he is to try an ice slide on shield or a pole vault over a chasm. A sorcerer is more likely to fireball than he is to drop a flaming barrel of oil. A battlemaster is more likely to use a trip maneuver with superiority dice then he is to try and tangle the legs of an opponent with rope. A wizard is more likely to fly than he is to use the shells of those giant beetles you killed an hour back to boat across a deadly pool.
For most people, when they have lots of cool toys, they try to use those toys when they can. When those toys have specific rules around their use, most people will stick to the rules. It's only once they've exhausted the possibilities do they then try to find creative solutions outside the normal rules. Some people never even reach that exhaustion point, because as soon as they see risk, they go with the sure and steady cantrip or simple attack or whatever it is they think is reliable.
When you have few toys, you reach that exhaustion point much quicker, and you start finding creative solutions earlier on. Or you don't. And in that case, you simply say "I attack" and then complain on the forums that the class is boring. And others suggest, "try these creative things, it makes the class more fun." And then others come in to say that anyone could do creative things, therefore that class is still boring. And then this argument ensues, where I use standard psychological knowledge and combine it with risk/benefit analysis to show that people who have lots of buttons are more likely to use those buttons before using creative solutions to a problem.
And it's true. You see it all over the place. Doing homework for school? You're more likely to use the tools your teacher taught in class than you are to come up with something novel. Doing a project for work? You're more likely to use the techniques and equipment already on hand than you are to engineer something new - it's only when you *can't* solve the problem with your current tools do you typically try and find a more creative solution. Hell, people will even do things harder because that's what they know, rather than try and figure out a better way. I see that all the time, in every occupation.
What's true in life is also true in this game. Those who are the exceptions - and they are exceptions, not the norm - are either rather talented or have been playing this game for so long that they long ago reached the point of exhaustive possibilities for their options and now find creative uses as a standard fare.