In Defense of the Champion

[Garresh]

Fighter-types who complain about a lack of options, in or out of combat, probably haven't tried:

• Kicking down doors
• Shield-surfing
• Swinging from chandeli-he-heirs
• Flipping tables
• Ripping rugs out from under enemies
• Shutting doors and holding them shut to keep a tide of enemies at bay
• Ripping a door off of the wall and using it as an impromptu shield
• Challenging people to arm-wrestling contests
• Challenging people to drinking contests
• Using a pick or other tool to destroy a wall, surprising the DM
• Ripping the locked-chest open through sheer brawn alone
• Hurling boulders

And infinite other possibilities. Notice that Remarkable Athlete gives the Champion a +1-3 bonus to all of the above, so long as the DM counts them as Checks.

Edit: and this is why I like Remarkable Athlete so much. All of that stupid stuff that players pull, stuff there's no rules for, stuff that other players remember...Remarkable Athlete gives bonuses to that stuff.

That's a good point, but arguably not RAW. Not that I care, if you've got a good DM who doesn't mind improvising then RAW can go sit in the corner while the cool kids have fun by the keg. For the sake of optimization and analysis though, I'm not sure it's "correct" to include those situations. You won't be able to pull them off at many tables, or in AL or something.

[Easy_Lee]

That's a good point, but arguably not RAW. Not that I care, if you've got a good DM who doesn't mind improvising then RAW can go sit in the corner while the cool kids have fun by the keg. For the sake of optimization and analysis though, I'm not sure it's "correct" to include those situations. You won't be able to pull them off at many tables, or in AL or something.

Fair point. The trouble with remarkable athlete is that most of the places it comes up won't be in the adventure books. The books generally ask for specific skills, and AL is notorious for being anti-improvisation. But the same point is often made about stealth. Some DMs just won't let you use it.

[bid]

TBH, given the rather timeless nature of the Champion debate, I'm not sure it's necromancy so much as a Resurrection. Both bring something back from the dead, but only one of them is decidedly evil. =P

A true resurrection would bring something fresh to break the karmic cycle. All I see is rehash of the glorious past of disproven beliefs that smells too much like undeath.

Still, I agree that remarkable athlete gives something unique to role-players. But that's a well-worn groove.

[mgshamster]

That's a good point, but arguably not RAW. Not that I care, if you've got a good DM who doesn't mind improvising then RAW can go sit in the corner while the cool kids have fun by the keg. For the sake of optimization and analysis though, I'm not sure it's "correct" to include those situations. You won't be able to pull them off at many tables, or in AL or something.

Of course you can use them in AL.

RAW can go bury itself in the sand; AL gives two ****s about RAW. It actively encourages DMs to alter adventures and make on the spot rulings to make the gaming experience better.

This edition is all about Rulings over Rules, and anyone who tries to claim "That's not RAW!" clearly has no clue about how 5e is designed.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Fair point. The trouble with remarkable athlete is that most of the places it comes up won't be in the adventure books. The books generally ask for specific skills, and AL is notorious for being anti-improvisation. But the same point is often made about stealth. Some DMs just won't let you use it.

The problem with Remarkable Athlete is that, at most levels, it's a +2 boost. 10%. That's barely significant. A Barbarian, on the other hand, can use the 6th level Bear Aspect feature to get advantage on most of the suggested checks, which is a far, far more noticeable gain.

Claiming that Remarkable Athlete makes Champions "meaningfully better at improvising" is, at best, highly optimistic.

[Easy_Lee]

The problem with Remarkable Athlete is that, at most levels, it's a +2 boost. 10%. That's barely significant. A Barbarian, on the other hand, can use the 6th level Bear Aspect feature to get advantage on most of the suggested checks, which is a far, far more noticeable gain.

Claiming that Remarkable Athlete makes Champions "meaningfully better at improvising" is, at best, highly optimistic.

Bear barbarians gain advantage on strength checks made to push, pull, lift, or break objects. Champions gain +1-3 on all Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution checks that don't already include proficiency, including initiative. Is advantage better than +1-3? Yes. And it should be, because the Barbarian doesn't get to use that advantage even half as often.

[djreynolds]

This champion build needs a ready source of advantage.

Shield master and brawny or rogue for expertise in athletics and you will score many crits.

Even 2 levels of barbarian for reckless attack and 18 of champion for heavy weapons will suffice.

And for archery, 2 levels of rogue for cunning action with hide and expertise in stealth.

I prefer 18 levels of champion but 15 will do.

The critical hits will add up, and with advantage you will rarely miss any swings.

3 attacks, though it doesn't seem much of a boon, means a minimum of 18 DPR if you roll all ones for damage.

Yes remarkable athlete is silly especially for that dex based champion who already selected stealth and acrobatics as skills, or that fighter who took athletics. You know an easy fix is to allow champions who are proficient already in 1 of the 4 skills (athletics, acrobatics, stealth, sleight of hand) to have "half" proficiency instead in another fighter class skill like animal handling, history, survival, insight or intimidation.

[Zalabim]

The problem with Remarkable Athlete is that, at most levels, it's a +2 boost. 10%. That's barely significant. A Barbarian, on the other hand, can use the 6th level Bear Aspect feature to get advantage on most of the suggested checks, which is a far, far more noticeable gain.

Claiming that Remarkable Athlete makes Champions "meaningfully better at improvising" is, at best, highly optimistic.

That's only because the barbearian has never heard of a crowbar.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Bear barbarians gain advantage on strength checks made to push, pull, lift, or break objects. Champions gain +1-3 on all Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution checks that don't already include proficiency, including initiative. Is advantage better than +1-3? Yes. And it should be, because the Barbarian doesn't get to use that advantage even half as often.

But most Dex checks are already going to be skills, and Con checks are rare and generally passive. It's the untyped Str check that gets brought up most often in these discussions. Your list? 8/12 were Str checks, most likely. Another 2 were probably Dex (Acrobatics), with the last two being Dex (Thief's Tools) and Con.

Also...you're probably not going to be good at both Dex AND Str checks, with or without Remarkable Athlete, because you almost certainly dumped one of those two stats. It might take you back to "secondary stat, no skill" levels, but that's about all I'd expect to see.

[Easy_Lee]

But most Dex checks are already going to be skills, and Con checks are rare and generally passive. It's the untyped Str check that gets brought up most often in these discussions. Your list? 8/12 were Str checks, most likely. Another 2 were probably Dex (Acrobatics), with the last two being Dex (Thief's Tools) and Con.

Also...you're probably not going to be good at both Dex AND Str checks, with or without Remarkable Athlete, because you almost certainly dumped one of those two stats. It might take you back to "secondary stat, no skill" levels, but that's about all I'd expect to see.

Seems to me you're determined to criticize and dislike the champion no matter how many counterarguments you're given.

The point of the the post you quoted originally was for champions to he creative and try things other classes might not. You I my have so many actions in and out of combat, after all. Creativity doesn't have a specific skill check attached to it. And if your argument is that the DM would rule in ways meant to show how useless the champion is, then I think those players need a new DM.

I'm bowing out of this one. I've made my point.

[Citan]

But most Dex checks are already going to be skills, and Con checks are rare and generally passive. It's the untyped Str check that gets brought up most often in these discussions. Your list? 8/12 were Str checks, most likely. Another 2 were probably Dex (Acrobatics), with the last two being Dex (Thief's Tools) and Con.

Also...you're probably not going to be good at both Dex AND Str checks, with or without Remarkable Athlete, because you almost certainly dumped one of those two stats. It might take you back to "secondary stat, no skill" levels, but that's about all I'd expect to see.

That's untrue in fact.
I just realized an important subtility in many spells while I was building suggestion characters in another thread: those spells that restrain movement one way or another usually give you a starting chance with a DEX/STR saving throw, but thereafter ONLY PLAIN DEX / STR CHECKS. So whether you would be proficient, or even Expert, in Athletics or Acrobatics, does not matter. Only raw demonstration of power or speed is important. That's why on spells such as Entangle, should you fail the initial saving throw, only your STR/DEX mod is used, unless you are a Bard (Jack of All Trades)... Or a Champion (Remarkable Athlete). And since checks are opposed to DC which can quickly reach beyond 15, even a small +3 counts much.

[Ralanr]

Fighter-types who complain about a lack of options, in or out of combat, probably haven't tried:

• Kicking down doors
• Shield-surfing
• Swinging from chandeli-he-heirs
• Flipping tables
• Ripping rugs out from under enemies
• Shutting doors and holding them shut to keep a tide of enemies at bay
• Ripping a door off of the wall and using it as an impromptu shield
• Challenging people to arm-wrestling contests
• Challenging people to drinking contests
• Using a pick or other tool to destroy a wall, surprising the DM
• Ripping the locked-chest open through sheer brawn alone
• Hurling boulders

And infinite other possibilities. Notice that Remarkable Athlete gives the Champion a +1-3 bonus to all of the above, so long as the DM counts them as Checks.

Edit: and this is why I like Remarkable Athlete so much. All of that stupid stuff that players pull, stuff there's no rules for, stuff that other players remember...Remarkable Athlete gives bonuses to that stuff.

I've made beds into cover, thrown mages into portals to win fights, and disarmed greater enemies.

Problem with this is that it's all DM fiat. It's not a guaranteed effect like most magic if it succeeds.

[Misterwhisper]

I've made beds into cover, thrown mages into portals to win fights, and disarmed greater enemies.

Problem with this is that it's all DM fiat. It's not a guaranteed effect like most magic if it succeeds.

Fighter-types who complain about a lack of options, in or out of combat, probably haven't tried:

• Kicking down doors
• Shield-surfing
• Swinging from chandeli-he-heirs
• Flipping tables
• Ripping rugs out from under enemies
• Shutting doors and holding them shut to keep a tide of enemies at bay
• Ripping a door off of the wall and using it as an impromptu shield
• Challenging people to arm-wrestling contests
• Challenging people to drinking contests
• Using a pick or other tool to destroy a wall, surprising the DM
• Ripping the locked-chest open through sheer brawn alone
• Hurling boulders

And infinite other possibilities. Notice that Remarkable Athlete gives the Champion a +1-3 bonus to all of the above, so long as the DM counts them as Checks.

Edit: and this is why I like Remarkable Athlete so much. All of that stupid stuff that players pull, stuff there's no rules for, stuff that other players remember...Remarkable Athlete gives bonuses to that stuff.

No, remarkable athlete does not give you bonuses to all that.

Never in the entire time I have seen people playing 5th edition, have I ever seen a fighter who did not take athletics or Acrobatics. Everything you listed is just an athlete s check, or not a check at all. If you are trained in athletics you would be better than using remarkable athlete anyway. 99% of the time it is just a half proficiency bonus to initiative.

Kicking down a door, athletics check, already covered, ability is useless.
Shield surfing, so what? The action does noyhing, it is just moving. You are trying to make an acrobatics check to look cool. Not a game mechanic, so again, useless.
Swinging from a chandelier, again athletics check, so useless.
Flipping tables, never going to be a check, it is just a table.
Ripping rug out from under someone, again athletics check which you should be trained in.
Holding door shut, again athletics check, already trained.
Ripping door off and making impromptu shield, can't work anyway, no such thing as improvised shields only weapons, even if it was allowed still athletics check.
Challenging people to arm wrestling or drinking, arm wrestling would be athletics and already covered. Drinking could just as easy be con saves, which are not effected.
Using a pick to destroy a wall is an attack, trying to damage an I animate object, not a skill or stat check.
Ripping open a chest is either an attack and not covered by the ability or athletics which is already covered.
Hurling boldest is improvised weapon attack, not a stat or skill check.


Remarkable Athlete should have given expertise in athletics and acrobatics, and maybe a +5 movement.

[Jerrykhor]

I don't get the argument about a player's creativity being the catalyst for a good Champion Fighter. I mean, if you are truly creative, playing a Fighter will only limit you and hold back your creativity. Sure, you can think of tons of cool stuff you can do with your Athletics that can impress a teenager, but the really cool stuff in D&D are the shenanigans.

Kicking down doors and flipping tables? Oh please, you can't get any more amateur than that. Lets see what magic can do with some creativity.

1. Thaumaturgy: Convince peasants you are a demigod. Make your eyes glow with power, make your voice 3x louder and cause tremors, that should do the trick.
2. Charm Person/Suggestion: Bend people to your will, tell people to give you their money.
3. Disguise Self+Friends: Make an NPC become the most hated person in town by going around pissing everyone off while disguised as said NPC, or tarnish said NPC's reputation by doing embarrassing stuff like running around stark naked.
4. Crown of Madness: NPC A and NPC B are allies and trusts each other a lot. Cause a fight between them by forcing one to attack the other while he/she is not looking.
5. Invisibility+ Actor feat: Make NPCs look like they are saying things they would not normally say
6. Tasha's Hideous Laughter: Challenge your party members to tell a joke that can make the barmaid laugh. Go on and win with the lamest joke.
7. Otto's Irresistible Dance: Challenge the BBEG to a dance off. Bonus points for having a Bard friend play your theme song.

I mean, if you have a lenient DM, why not try pushing the boundaries?

[mgshamster]

The funny thing is, I never see people try to do creative things with spells in games. They always just expect them to work as written. Whether it's home games or AL games (or even PFS games back when I played Pathfinder), or anywhere else all throughout my 27 years of D&D and 10 years of playing/running public/official games.

Nor do I see it on the boards all that often. It's fairly rare.

However, creative use of spells come out of the word work just as soon as someone mentions fighters using creativity. It's almost guaranteed. One mention of the fighter being creative, and people come out claiming the same thing with spells. That's about the *only* time I ever see spells used creatively and outside the RAW.

And here's why:

PCs with lots of buttons with clear rules tend to use those buttons because they're guaranteed to work. They don't want to waste precious limited resources like spell slots on something that might work, and they typically don't want to waste actions trying a possibility when they've got a guaranteed button that will work in their pocket. As a prime example, just look at how often people say to not use an illusionist, because it's so DM dependent - they recommend using something that will just work without the DM.

But PCs with very few buttons don't have anything to lose trying new stuff, and often need to go beyond their buttons to try creative things. Usually people who decry these "boring" classes often do so because they don't want to have to be creative, there's too much DM dependency on it. They want the rules to dictate that it works.

Granted, there are exceptions - but I find those exceptions to be rare; except in the case where someone needs to prove that fighters suck, because a caster *could* be creative, too. It's just, they so rarely are.

[pwykersotz]

I don't get the argument about a player's creativity being the catalyst for a good Champion Fighter. I mean, if you are truly creative, playing a Fighter will only limit you and hold back your creativity. Sure, you can think of tons of cool stuff you can do with your Athletics that can impress a teenager, but the really cool stuff in D&D are the shenanigans.

Kicking down doors and flipping tables? Oh please, you can't get any more amateur than that. Lets see what magic can do with some creativity.

1. Thaumaturgy: Convince peasants you are a demigod. Make your eyes glow with power, make your voice 3x louder and cause tremors, that should do the trick.
2. Charm Person/Suggestion: Bend people to your will, tell people to give you their money.
3. Disguise Self+Friends: Make an NPC become the most hated person in town by going around pissing everyone off while disguised as said NPC, or tarnish said NPC's reputation by doing embarrassing stuff like running around stark naked.
4. Crown of Madness: NPC A and NPC B are allies and trusts each other a lot. Cause a fight between them by forcing one to attack the other while he/she is not looking.
5. Invisibility+ Actor feat: Make NPCs look like they are saying things they would not normally say
6. Tasha's Hideous Laughter: Challenge your party members to tell a joke that can make the barmaid laugh. Go on and win with the lamest joke.
7. Otto's Irresistible Dance: Challenge the BBEG to a dance off. Bonus points for having a Bard friend play your theme song.

I mean, if you have a lenient DM, why not try pushing the boundaries?

Relying on magic to inspire creativity is a crutch. Accepting that both it and the skill system are tools that a creative mind can use and that the Champion has the ability to make parts of the skill system shine is necessary if you want to get the most out of your character.

The funny thing is, I never see people try to do creative things with spells in games. They always just expect them to work as written. Whether it's home games or AL games (or even PFS games back when I played Pathfinder), or anywhere else all throughout my 27 years of D&D and 10 years of playing/running public/official games.

Nor do I see it on the boards all that often. It's fairly rare.

However, creative use of spells come out of the word work just as soon as someone mentions fighters using creativity. It's almost guaranteed. One mention of the fighter being creative, and people come out claiming the same thing with spells. That's about the *only* time I ever see spells used creatively and outside the RAW.

And here's why:

PCs with lots of buttons with clear rules tend to use those buttons because they're guaranteed to work. They don't want to waste precious limited resources like spell slots on something that might work, and they typically don't want to waste actions trying a possibility when they've got a guaranteed button that will work in their pocket. As a prime example, just look at how often people say to not use an illusionist, because it's so DM dependent - they recommend using something that will just work without the DM.

But PCs with very few buttons don't have anything to lose trying new stuff, and often need to go beyond their buttons to try creative things. Usually people who decry these "boring" classes often do so because they don't want to have to be creative, there's too much DM dependency on it. They want the rules to dictate that it works.

Granted, there are exceptions - but I find those exceptions to be rare; except in the case where someone needs to prove that fighters suck, because a caster *could* be creative, too. It's just, they so rarely are.

I agree that this is the trend because I see it online, but my players almost never use spells as push-button. They're always trying some new wacky shenanigans. I often exact a wacky price, and fun times occur. It seems bizarre to me that there are players out there who won't try off-the-wall stunts with magic.

[KorvinStarmast]

Problem with this is that it's all DM fiat. It's not a guaranteed effect like most magic if it succeeds.

Saving throw. Magic isn't a guaranteed effect in a great many cases, such as when it is being used to influence another creature.
(Fly spell, on the other hand, is uncontested...and a variety of other utility spells).

[alchahest]

Man what groups are you playing with where having more mechanical support for your various abilities somehow limits your imagination?

that list of things all falls into athletics/acrobatics, which are covered better by being trained in the skills than by the bone throw "feature". The only thing Remarkable Athlete gives is an init bonus. a Rogue or bard can have double proficiency on all of those things you listed if you like, and then some. The other thing that probabilities fail to account for is hot or cold dice - a rogue could very well crit twice a turn (twf). it's not likely, but, it could happen. The other side of things can happen as well - you can have a string of amazing, but not critical rolls, even with expanded crit range. It's anecdotal/apocryphal so I'm not trying to use it as a data point, but as a point of personal frustration, I was playing a hexblade/EK, and had cursed the target with hexblade's curse, giving me the 19-20 crit range. I rolled four 18s and two 17s. amazing, lucky rolls, but didn't key the feature bonus at all.

The main thing with the champion isn't that it doesn't have a bonus - it's that it doesn't have a reliable bonus. it's got a probability shift of 5%, and later 10%, to do double weapon damage. Nobody on gygax's green earth would argue that this isn't a bonus, it's just that it's a bonus you may not see during a session. Leaving you to pretend that all that improvisation stuff listed is somehow unique to your class, as opposed to being things literally everyone can do, and some people have the ability to do much, much better.

[SharkForce]

Man what groups are you playing with where having more mechanical support for your various abilities somehow limits your imagination?

that list of things all falls into athletics/acrobatics, which are covered better by being trained in the skills than by the bone throw "feature". The only thing Remarkable Athlete gives is an init bonus. a Rogue or bard can have double proficiency on all of those things you listed if you like, and then some. The other thing that probabilities fail to account for is hot or cold dice - a rogue could very well crit twice a turn (twf). it's not likely, but, it could happen. The other side of things can happen as well - you can have a string of amazing, but not critical rolls, even with expanded crit range. It's anecdotal/apocryphal so I'm not trying to use it as a data point, but as a point of personal frustration, I was playing a hexblade/EK, and had cursed the target with hexblade's curse, giving me the 19-20 crit range. I rolled four 18s and two 17s. amazing, lucky rolls, but didn't key the feature bonus at all.

The main thing with the champion isn't that it doesn't have a bonus - it's that it doesn't have a reliable bonus. it's got a probability shift of 5%, and later 10%, to do double weapon damage. Nobody on gygax's green earth would argue that this isn't a bonus, it's just that it's a bonus you may not see during a session. Leaving you to pretend that all that improvisation stuff listed is somehow unique to your class, as opposed to being things literally everyone can do, and some people have the ability to do much, much better.

there are actually a variety of things that people give skill proficiency to, but probably shouldn't.

for example, moving heavy objects, breaking things, that sort of thing. a lot of people like to give athletics proficiency bonuses to for some reason, and yet, there is no sport that is going to teach you how to push over a statue, uproot a tree, rip manacles out of a wall that they've been bolted to, smash a door, lift a boulder that's pinning a person's legs, etc. there are also a few checks to escape from various spells that are strength checks, but not athletics checks.

now, i personally am not that impressed with champion. i'm particularly not that impressed by half proficiency bonus to physical ability checks... for *most* checks, if you cared enough about it, you'd be proficient in the first place, and you wouldn't need any class features to give you half proficiency, and let's face it, half proficiency isn't exactly a huge boost. but there's still a difference between something that doesn't help at all and something that is occasionally a bit useful.

[alchahest]

I don't agree with you that "sport" defines "athletics" and even then, there are sports that are literally a series of feats of strength. the World's strongest man competition being the biggest, but powerlifting is an olympic sport - and things like Sumo are expressly a combination of agility and raw strength.

[Elderand]

People saying athletic should cover breaking things, pushing things or the like would do well to reread what the skill actually covers, because that's none of these things.

Your strength (Athletics) check covers difficult situations you encounter while climbing, jumping, or swimming.

[alchahest]

People saying athletic should cover breaking things, pushing things or the like would do well to reread what the skill actually covers, because that's none of these things.

I've been grappling wrong!

after the examples (which are not meant to be exhaustive) there's even more examples!

• Force open a stuck, locked, or barred door
• Break free of bonds
• Push through a tunnel that is too small
• Hang on to a wagon while being dragged behind it
• Tip over a statue
• Keep a boulder from rolling


Is this another situation where having more options artificially limits what you can choose to do?

[Elderand]

I've been grappling wrong!

after the examples (which are not meant to be exhaustive) there's even more examples!

• Force open a stuck, locked, or barred door
• Break free of bonds
• Push through a tunnel that is too small
• Hang on to a wagon while being dragged behind it
• Tip over a statue
• Keep a boulder from rolling


Is this another situation where having more options artificially limits what you can choose to do?

Now that's either a failure of reading, or you're being very misleading. Those exemples are not exemples of what athletics covers, they are exemple of strength checks.

[alchahest]

A failure of reading. And here I thought WoTC had decided to make things intuitive, instead of less. My apologies for my sass. I'll leave it up as a reminder to myself be more careful when I disagree.

it IS weird that if the list of "climing, jumping, or swimming" is meant to be the entire breadth of the athletics experience, that grappling is an athletics check. One might infer (and also misread) that other things requiring athletic prowess may indeed fall under "Athletics", due to this oversight on their part.

[Elderand]

A failure of reading. And here I thought WoTC had decided to make things intuitive, instead of less. My apologies for my sass. I'll leave it up as a reminder to myself be more careful when I disagree.

it IS weird that if the list of "climing, jumping, or swimming" is meant to be the entire breadth of the athletics experience, that grappling is an athletics check. One might infer (and also misread) that other things requiring athletic prowess may indeed fall under "Athletics", due to this oversight on their part.

I agree that they should have added grappling directly under the list of things athletic covers under the ability list rather than leave that on its own under the grappling section. However I think that what the skills do is limited to what the book say they do. It doesn't limit what one can attempt however, since anything outside those limited option is simply a more general ability check.

If one keep that in mind then we can see that champion remarkable athlete actually makes the champion into a jack of all trades, not unlike the bard if less broadly applicable. Half proficiency to any physical checks covers a lot of ground. How often that comes up depends on circumstances and party composition, but it's still better than nothing.

[mgshamster]

Man what groups are you playing with where having more mechanical support for your various abilities somehow limits your imagination?

No one ever said that it limits the imagination; what was said is that people with many choices are less likely to choose to be creative with those choices.

Here's an example. Let's say we have 5 challenges to overcome in a limited amount of time (say 1 challenge per round), and each player has a number of options for which they can either use as is or be creative with them.

Player 1 has 20 buttons to use, and ten of those buttons will likely solve the various challenges when used as is.

Player 2 has 2 buttons, which may or may not solve all the challenges.

Which player is more likely to engage in creative uses of their options?

When you add a lot of options, the chance of one of those options working as written increases. Why risk a creative use when you can simply use it as is?

When you have few options, you're often required to be creative to even overcome the challenges at all.

This is a classic risk-benefit analysis.

For player 1, the risk is too high for no added benefit when using creative options rather than options which simply work. For Player 2, the added benefit is worth the added risk.

I do this kind of analysis all the time at my work. If I have an option I know will solve a problem, I simply use that option. But if I don't have an option to solve the problem, I have to become creative and engineer a new solution. The more options I acquire, the more likely one of the options I have will work and I don't need to use a creative solution. I could become creative, but why waste resources if I don't have to, especially for no added benefit?

The benefit must be worth the risk, and for those with few options, it often is worth the risk.

[alchahest]

I have to say it's been the complete opposite for the five groups I've played with regularly over the last twenty years have relished the ability to use more buttons to do even more things.

What you're describing isn't "Giving more options" it's "Forcing players to interact with the game in ways that aren't mechanically supported". And if that improves your game, that's great, but, the only thing preventing a player with a bunch of mechanically supported options from doing something outside those things is.. nothing. If you allow a champion to swing from a chandelier to kick a guy into the fire, what kind of DM would you be if a bard tried the same thing and you said "nah that's not one of your options"?

I don't think we're going to agree on this. My position is that mechanically supported options increase the ability for players to interact with the mechanics in a meaningful way, and your position appears to be that reducing mechanical support for things in a game full of mechanics, increases the ability for players to interact with the mechanics in a meaningful way.

Your argument also includes the implication that if one of the things you want to do is supported by mechanics it is no longer creative or fun, which I don't agree with. If champion got a move called "Swing from the chandelier and kick a guy into the fire" and the player notices a chandelier, a fireplace, and a guy to kick, is it somehow less satisfying for him to roll his Swing from the chandelier and kick a guy into the fire check than it is to roll a half proficiency athletics or acrobatics check?

[mgshamster]

You have complete misunderstood or misconstrued my argument, and your rewrite of my position is entirely wrong.

You have also added a new unsupported element to the discussion - that of 'creative = fun' and 'not creative = not fun' - an element which has previously not been brought up, and you assigned that element to my position. This is not only a strawman, but also begs the question.

If you're having difficulty understanding my position, I can try to rephrase it using different words.

[pwykersotz]

Your argument also includes the implication that if one of the things you want to do is supported by mechanics it is no longer creative or fun, which I don't agree with. If champion got a move called "Swing from the chandelier and kick a guy into the fire" and the player notices a chandelier, a fireplace, and a guy to kick, is it somehow less satisfying for him to roll his Swing from the chandelier and kick a guy into the fire check than it is to roll a half proficiency athletics or acrobatics check?

Just to chime in with my 2cp, I find that the move you create is almost always more satisfying than the one you use. This might just be my table, but I guarantee that my players would not enjoy using that move if given the opportunity. They would only enjoy using it if they TOOK the opportunity. Especially if that opportunity came at an interesting cost.

Which is not to say that the mechanical opportunities aren't fun, just that it's more fun to go beyond (okay I can't help myself here) PLUS ULTRA!!!

[alchahest]

You have complete misunderstood or misconstrued my argument, and your rewrite of my position is entirely wrong.

You have also added a new unsupported element to the discussion - that of 'creative = fun' and 'not creative = not fun' - an element which has previously not been brought up, and you assigned that element to my position. This is not only a strawman, but also begs the question.

If you're having difficulty understanding my position, I can try to rephrase it using different words.

Please do! I'd rather understand than not.

Currently I find myself disagreeing with the assertion that having more mechanically supported options restricts creative uses of those options. If this is not your position I may not disagree with you. I feel, and it has been my experience that, the more options for player agency you have, the more opportunities you have to be creative with things. You're given a mechanical solid ground from which to base your cool fancy stuff. Otherwise, why have abilities at all? We could instead play FATE, which a lot of people enjoy!


And, as an aside, I'm really bored of having arguments consist of naming logical fallacies instead of engaging the root of the statement earnestly. Not everyone is a student of debate, some people have different opinions without knowing/abiding by codified rules for argument. And at the end of the day the discussion is meant to show each person's point of view, not to prove which one is better at the rules of discussion.