D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Micah Sweet]

That's why I prefer a warlord-type that can do the things that archetype should be able to do well, and fight but not as well or with as much versatility as the fighter. Level Up's Marshal fits the bill well.

 

[Oofta]

A few random thoughts on this. First, I have no problems with people playing fighters and wizards up to 20th level. Yes, the wizard can go nova, but the fighter is the energizer bunny that just keeps going and going hacking and slashing. I played a way of mercy monk in one of my previous campaigns and now another player wants to play a monk and my wife is planning on playing one in the campaign I run because they were so effective.

As far as the warlord, I don't really pay much attention to custom classes but there are plenty of ways to run a support style character. Bard, cleric, variations of wizard or even the battle master fighter if they focus on helping others. Heck, a totem barbarian with a wolf totem grants advantage to attacks for everyone, not exactly a warlord (whatever that would be) but still more of a supporting other players style of play. I guess I just don't see that much of a need for a warlord, especially when you throw in multi classing. So if you just take a fighter and then add on a bunch of extras on top without taking away anything, of course it's going to be overpowered.

There's never going to be enough options for some people. I don't have an issue with a warlord per se but I also don't see that big of a gap in the current options that it's necessary. It's kind of like how they've floated a half dozen or so options for psionics, but despite multiple people clamoring for it, those people rarely agree on what it should actually do or be.

When I play a fighter, I want them to be a fighter. Even if that means that, like my Rune Knight I played recently, they get a few extra benefits. What I don't want is for them to be something they aren't. One of the the things they are not is a warlord.

 

[aco175]

I might be ok with the core fighter, wizard, cleric, and thief being a bit more powerful than the other classes. Mostly since I see the other classes as combos of the first four and if you get powers from 2 other classes instead of just one. It then feels as a bit more power already compared to single class PCs. I also tend to just play until level 12ish so comparing high level play does not affect me.

 

[Deset Gled]

The Snarf Supposition: 100% of so-called fallacies made up by people on the internet are either not, in fact, fallacies, or are just special pleading for an already recognized fallacy. Instead, they are just trying to use fancy terms to get people that already agree with you to agree with you by asserting that the people who disagree with you are illogical. See, e.g., the Crab Bucket Fallacy, the Stormwind Fallacy, the Oberoni Fallacy et al.

What you are doing is, in fact, using the straw man fallacy. The primary opposition from people that oppose creating a Fighter with "all the same abilities" as a Wizard is not that no one would play a vanilla fighter; instead, it's because there are people that do not want those abilities in a martial character. Whether that is good, or bad, is a different issue. Some people like Conan, others prefer Wuxia. But that's the real argument.

There is a separate, and collateral, issue as to balance, both between similar classes and as to the related issue of "niche protection" and so-called spotlight issues, but that's not the primary basis for most objections.

Also, this Crab Bucket is entirely based on the underlying assumption that martials are underpowered and casters overpowered. Which is multiple fallacies right of the bat. For starters, it's a circular argument. Also it's reducing the very complicated concept of balance to a binary proposition. And lumping all casters and martials together. And that's not even getting into the fallacy-fallacy that predicates the entire argument.

Turtles all the way way down.

 

[Micah Sweet]

A few random thoughts on this. First, I have no problems with people playing fighters and wizards up to 20th level. Yes, the wizard can go nova, but the fighter is the energizer bunny that just keeps going and going hacking and slashing. I played a way of mercy monk in one of my previous campaigns and now another player wants to play a monk and my wife is planning on playing one in the campaign I run because they were so effective.

As far as the warlord, I don't really pay much attention to custom classes but there are plenty of ways to run a support style character. Bard, cleric, variations of wizard or even the battle master fighter if they focus on helping others. Heck, a totem barbarian with a wolf totem grants advantage to attacks for everyone, not exactly a warlord (whatever that would be) but still more of a supporting other players style of play. I guess I just don't see that much of a need for a warlord, especially when you throw in multi classing. So if you just take a fighter and then add on a bunch of extras on top without taking away anything, of course it's going to be overpowered.

There's never going to be enough options for some people. I don't have an issue with a warlord per se but I also don't see that big of a gap in the current options that it's necessary. It's kind of like how they've floated a half dozen or so options for psionics, but despite multiple people clamoring for it, those people rarely agree on what it should actually do or be.

When I play a fighter, I want them to be a fighter. Even if that means that, like my Rune Knight I played recently, they get a few extra benefits. What I don't want is for them to be something they aren't. One of the the things they are not is a warlord.

WorC should have just picked a psionics option and published it. All their dithering around and demanding concensus before actually doing anything is why their version of 5e doesn't have it.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Counterpoint: Crab buckets are good eatin'.

 

[Dausuul]

The Snarf Supposition: 100% of so-called fallacies made up by people on the internet are either not, in fact, fallacies, or are just special pleading for an already recognized fallacy. Instead, they are just trying to use fancy terms to get people that already agree with you to agree with you by asserting that the people who disagree with you are illogical. See, e.g., the Crab Bucket Fallacy, the Stormwind Fallacy, the Oberoni Fallacy et al.

What you are doing is, in fact, using the straw man fallacy. The primary opposition from people that oppose creating a Fighter with "all the same abilities" as a Wizard is not that no one would play a vanilla fighter; instead, it's because there are people that do not want those abilities in a martial character. Whether that is good, or bad, is a different issue. Some people like Conan, others prefer Wuxia. But that's the real argument.

The proposed fallacy is certainly something I've seen in other contexts, though.

Spells are a good example. You propose a spell which sucks the life out of an enemy and transfers it to you. Someone points out that your spell is way better than vampiric touch, and is therefore obviously OP; in fact, of course, vampiric touch is one of the most pathetically underpowered spells in the game, so any similar spell that is reasonably balanced will look grossly OP by comparison.

I'd call it "false presumption of balance" rather than "crab bucket," but "crab bucket" is a lot catchier.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Also, this Crab Bucket is entirely based on the underlying assumption that martials are underpowered and casters overpowered. Which is multiple fallacies right of the bat. For starters, it's a circular argument. Also it's reducing the very complicated concept of balance to a binary proposition. And lumping all casters and martials together. And that's not even getting into the fallacy-fallacy that predicates the entire argument.

Turtles all the way way down.

That's because you are too hung up on the specific classes. Disagree with the core idea as much as you wish, the main argument still holds.

If you want to claim that a particular class is imbalanced against another class, you must compare against ALL classes. You can't just arbitrarily decide that only a subset of the classes are valid for comparison.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

The Snarf Supposition: 100% of so-called fallacies made up by people on the internet are either not, in fact, fallacies, or are just special pleading for an already recognized fallacy. Instead, they are just trying to use fancy terms to get people that already agree with you to agree with you by asserting that the people who disagree with you are illogical. See, e.g., the Crab Bucket Fallacy, the Stormwind Fallacy, the Oberoni Fallacy et al.

Making up catchy names for things is fun, though!

What you are doing is, in fact, using the straw man fallacy. The primary opposition from people that oppose creating a Fighter with "all the same abilities" as a Wizard is not that no one would play a vanilla fighter; instead, it's because there are people that do not want those abilities in a martial character. Whether that is good, or bad, is a different issue. Some people like Conan, others prefer Wuxia. But that's the real argument.

I'm trying to avoid talking about specific solutions because I don't want to see this as a balance discussion. In fact as I state in reply to another poster here, you could strip away the classes and class categories I mention entirely and formulate it something like this:

"If you want to claim that a particular class is imbalanced against another class, you must compare against ALL classes. You can't just arbitrarily decide that only a subset of the classes are valid for comparison."

 

[Deset Gled]

If you want to claim that a particular class is imbalanced against another class, you must compare against ALL classes. You can't just arbitrarily decide that only a subset of the classes are valid for comparison.

That's a very resonable opinion, and a worthy consideration for someone interested in game design. But it has nothing to do with logical fallacies.