In Defense of the Champion

[pwykersotz]

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.

No disrespect to mgshamster (quite the opposite!), but this right here is a shining beacon of truth. I end up abandoning threads that start quoting fallacies for exactly this reason, when people use them to bully more than inform.

[mgshamster]

No disrespect to mgshamster (quite the opposite!), but this right here is a shining beacon of truth. I end up abandoning threads that start quoting fallacies for exactly this reason, when people use them to bully more than inform.

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.

[alchahest]

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.

I think I must have just been incredibly lucky - even twenty years ago when I (and my the friends I was playing with at the time) were completely green, the pursuit of derring-do has always gone above and beyond what is explicitly supported. What more mechanical support does, for us (that group and all the other groups I've played with, since) is give a baseline that makes adjudicating results of off book things easier.

I tend to have more faith in fellow roleplayers than to think granting them mechanical support for the baseline things a class can do (like rage, for example - it is a mechanical benefit that gives advantage on strength checks, and additional damage and toughness in melee combat) is a baseline element that can be expanded on by the player.

Going to a specific example, If a barbarian wants to enter a rage to hold a portcullis open so his friends and the freed hostages can escape, by RAW the turn after he doesn't attack / doesn't take damage, rage ends. But this event was a perfect example of expanding the baseline RAW to provide narrative control to a player - it serves the story to have him make a heroic feat of strength that is potentially only possible because he is raging, and letting him exceed the words on the page as a way to allow it mechanically for longer than the one round it would normally last.

I don't agree that saying that a barbarian, who has mechanical support for having advantage on strength checks whilst raging, would not choose to do this thing, because the particular class feature does not technically allow it. When that player detailed what he wanted to do, I let him run with it, because it is a cool thing for a hero to do, and a creative way to use a class feature that provides a baseline of capability, beyond what is normally allowed.

That's not possible using RAW for the barbarian, much like, going by RAW, there's no non-adlib ability for a champion to swing from a chandelier and make an attack with a push attached to send an enemy into a firepit. In both cases, it's very easy to say "yeah, do that cool thing, great thinking. Heck, that's inspiration-fodder, you can have inspiration for doing this cool thing".

As a battlemaster-specific example, We had a battlemaster archer use disarming shot to knock an enemy's sword into the air, then precision shot (at disadvantage!) to knock the disarmed sword off the side of the ship we were on. The rules don't specifically outline this, but the battlemaster wanted to do it and it was an adequate resource expenditure to do so. There's a whole world of things you can do with mechanical support that makes it easier to improvise things, because it gives you a mechanical footing to leap from.


I apologise for misconstruing your argument. While I still disagree with you, I don't mean to expand your position to cover things you didn't say, that's crappy of me.

[MeeposFire]

No disrespect to mgshamster (quite the opposite!), but this right here is a shining beacon of truth. I end up abandoning threads that start quoting fallacies for exactly this reason, when people use them to bully more than inform.

It gets even worse when they use them incorrectly which happens a lot. Also people need to stop using fallacies from the old WotC board since it no longer exists. Trying to accurately describe what the fallacy is can be very difficult but when the original writer of it si from a defunct board and people misconstrue it since then all the time its use gets too difficult to figure out.

[mgshamster]

I apologise for misconstruing your argument. While I still disagree with you, I don't mean to expand your position to cover things you didn't say, that's crappy of me.

I greatly appreciate this, and accept the apology. I, too, apologize for harping on you about it. Despite any disagreements we may have, you deserve a lot of respect for owning up to mistakes.

[FITZBURGER]

Don't forget about the sentinel feat either. I use it in a game I'm in now and if you're defending members of your party, the extra attack you get on reaction is just another chance to score a critical before your next turn. The way mine is going is shield+sentinel+shield mastery, so you're hard to hit and get an opportunity to take down enemies trying to flee or trying to hit down your party.

[alchahest]

Sentinel does not change the number of reactions you have in a turn.

[Mikal]

It gets even worse when they use them incorrectly which happens a lot. Also people need to stop using fallacies from the old WotC board since it no longer exists. Trying to accurately describe what the fallacy is can be very difficult but when the original writer of it si from a defunct board and people misconstrue it since then all the time its use gets too difficult to figure out.

The WotC board fallacies are easily defined and available to reference elsewhere online if needed, and are still very valid. There's no reason not to use them if the argument falls into them.

[bid]

You are 30 months late on that reply.

Don't forget about the sentinel feat either. I use it in a game I'm in now and if you're defending members of your party, the extra attack you get on reaction is just another chance to score a critical before your next turn. The way mine is going is shield+sentinel+shield mastery, so you're hard to hit and get an opportunity to take down enemies trying to flee or trying to hit down your party.

Please don't necro thread with false hope.