D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[SteveC]

ou missed my point. It’s not necessarily direct power balance as much as desirability leading to potentially dominating choices. That’s what the so-called Crab Bucket fallacy completely misses.

Oh I got it: I'm saying that the Crab Bucket fallacy is itself a fallacy. There are already Fighter subclasses that make the Champion look bad. So this should already be happening, right? And yet that Champion is quite popular, and we've had people in this thread discuss how it's just fine as an option. Making the number of better Fighter options n+1 isn't going to change that because n is already greater than 0.

And if you think about it, will the idea of a Warlord appeal to the player type who chooses a Champion? I don't know why everyone plays one but speaking from recent experience, the player who chose one wanted to hit things in combat and not think about much else. There's no way the Warlord would appeal to him. I'll also point out that he was getting disgruntled by the end of the game with not being the best in combat (that was our Rogue character).

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

You missed my point. It’s not necessarily direct power balance as much as desirability leading to potentially dominating choices. That’s what the so-called Crab Bucket fallacy completely misses.

Let's disregard power for a second and just consider attractiveness on aesthetics alone. Is it really a problem if a particular class dominates? I think all that indicates is that the class is very popular and that's good for the class. If anything that indicates that other classes need to shape up.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The point is that the 2024 playtest fighter adds major aspects that people in this very topic say nobody wanted and that the 5e is great and the majority is satisfied with it.

Yet

• Weapon Mastery
• Tactical Mind
• Tactical Shift
• New Indomitable
• Master of Armaments
• Studied Attacks

Are all in playtest as things the online community requested and likely will make the new PHB base fighter.

The point should be clearly stated, then.

But beyond the fact that you have for the umpteenth time made a vague claim or assertion and then huffed that someone missed your point when they didn’t divine your secret meaning exactly as you’d hoped, the point is false.

The playtest is adding some stuff, cool. No one has ever opposed those things in any significant numbers, nor denied that they’d be nice, nor does their inclusion prove anything beyond “players like new things and more options and this broadens the fighter out of the box with very little increase in complexity” which no one would have debrief at any point.

You’re also leaping from people generally saying, “hey that’s cool yes please” all the way across an enormous gulf to “all of this was bad before and finally the fighter will be playable”.

The fighter is largely fine for most groups, and wouldn’t be the most popular class if it weren’t.

The fighter has plenty of room to add some non-combat stuff and some tactical in-combat stuff, and dial in existing mechanics a bit more based on a decade of playtest.

The two are both true.

 

[tetrasodium]

Another thing that came to mind that I wish WotC would do in the new edition. Put front and center that the DM is expected to limit the classes in their game based on the game world. With that said, you could have a Wuxia "light step" Fighter or a inspirational Warlord with the expectation that they might not exist in the same world as, say, a Champion or a Cleric. Make a suggested list of classes by campaign type.

All too often, I see "if it's in a WotC product it's okay for the game." I think there are a number of really reasonable people in this discussion that don't want Wuxia fighters in their game and don't like martial healing either. And I definitely respect that. Just make the assumption that every game will have a pick of classes made by the DM with the assistance of the players. That way you have "official" classes, and you don't have them in your game if you don't want to. And with that make sure that you have the basis of roles covered even if you don't call them out by that name.

Now I know that many of the DMs in this thread will say "I already do that," and that's great, but I'm not talking to you. I'm talking to that first time DM who likely just assumes that if it's in the game, it will be in their game.

That's something that wotc could really be more clear about. Sure 5e might have some references about working with the GM but going by ctrl-f the closest it comes to being clear about the GM limiting things is "Check with your Dungeon Master to see if you can play a drow character" on phb24. In general the player facing 5e chargen & session0 text very much presents the GM as little more than a spectator waiting to get all of the details to trigger the go do your job condition of running the game for the Main Character the reader just created.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

That's begging the question - you're starting from the assumption that fighters are "lacking". I don't make that assumption.

We know. It was your insinuation that Fighters are demanding to be

better out of combat than every other class,

that I was taking issue with, since I've not seen anyone actually doing so.

There comes a point where you cross over from action-movie heroics to over the top. It's the difference between The Witcher where they do amazing physical feats but other than the occasional use of Aard (thunderwave in D&D) and Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon*. Yes, Geralt stabs a griffon and slices his head open, but he's not so light on his feet that he can balance on the slenderest of tree branches while doing wire-fu. More recently, I enjoyed One Piece but I think representing some of the aspects of that show would be better suited to a different game.

I'm okay with The Witcher which calls out magic as magic but Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon feels like the wrong visuals and approach for D&D. The game is flexible, but are still going to be limits.

*Note: I'm not a big fan of anime, wuxia, or whatever the correct term is. So sorry if I use the wrong term and reference an old movie.

Indeed. Hence the difference between Warblade (good with a weapon, good with leadership and tactics, good in a fight) and Swordsage (throw someone 50ft, dance through the air, project energy with a sweep of your weapon, touch someone and explode their heart.)
Sounds like you would be just fine with a Warblade, but Swordsage or Bladesinger would be too over-the-top for you.
Everyone has different preferences.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's begging the question - you're starting from the assumption that fighters are "lacking". I don't make that assumption.



There comes a point where you cross over from action-movie heroics to over the top. It's the difference between The Witcher where they do amazing physical feats but other than the occasional use of Aard (thunderwave in D&D) and Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon*. Yes, Geralt stabs a griffon and slices his head open, but he's not so light on his feet that he can balance on the slenderest of tree branches while doing wire-fu. More recently, I enjoyed One Piece but I think representing some of the aspects of that show would be better suited to a different game.

I'm okay with The Witcher which calls out magic as magic but Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon feels like the wrong visuals and approach for D&D. The game is flexible, but are still going to be limits.




*Note: I'm not a big fan of anime, wuxia, or whatever the correct term is. So sorry if I use the wrong term and reference an old movie.

I'm sorry, but if D&D can't do everything you're the bad guy for being restrictive, or so I've reasoned from the sentiments of many posters lately.

 

[Oofta]

We know. It was your insinuation that Fighters are demanding to be
that I was taking issue with, since I've not seen anyone actually doing so.

Whenever I point out that a fighter can have proficiencies, don't need to min-max, potentially take feats if they really feel like they need expertise there's a common response. "But other classes can do that too!" The clear implication being that fighters have to have something different and special that other classes can't also do. I'm not saying you have done that.

Indeed. Hence the difference between Warblade (good with a weapon, good with leadership and tactics, good in a fight) and Swordsage (throw someone 50ft, dance through the air, project energy with a sweep of your weapon, touch someone and explode their heart.)

Sounds like you would be just fine with a Warblade, but Swordsage or Bladesinger would be too over-the-top for you.
Everyone has different preferences.

Fair enough. I want supernatural stuff to be clearly supernatural. Whether that's a barbarian's spirit ancestors or a Rune Knights magical symbols.

 

[Minigiant]

You’re also leaping from people generally saying, “hey that’s cool yes please” all the way across an enormous gulf to “all of this was bad before and finally the fighter will be playable”.

At no point did I "all of this was bad before and finally the fighter will be playable”.

What I said over and over is:

1. The D&D community is diverse
2. The archetypes of nonmagical warriors are diverse
3. The 5e Fighter doesn't match either diversity
4. Designing new classes within the balance of the 2014 Fighter is hard
5. This creates a situation where 2 D&D fans might want different types of fighter but only have one to choose from. 2 people plaing fighter (making it popular) but one 1 being satisfied with it (lowered satisfaction)

This goes beyond the fighter and is hit in other classes, races, spells, items, etc. Things can be popular but have aspects with which can less global satisfaction. This is less of a problem with large amounts of options to choice from. But 5e is slow with releases and started with a heavy traditionalist bend at the start. And it did not go back to fix old options until 10 years later.

This reinforces the Crab Bucket.

EDIT:

IE look at the 5e Vampric Touch. How do you print that trash.

How do you design within the bands of VT and Lightning Bolt? If someone says "You can't design Bone Spear! What about Vampiric Touch?".

Or the 5e Half Orc. That's balanced too. Gotta design based on that.

"Because 5e is the most popular edition of D&D."

 

[Deadstop]

psst psst. Not all classes and subclasses are all balanced against each other. Nor should they be.

If they are not, that should be intentional and made clear in the rulebooks, so that something like 3rd edition "tier-limited" parties can happen from the first rather than have to be a fan add-on.

If the impression given, if not the outright statement, is that you can contribute equally (if not in exactly the same ways) by writing any class name on your sheet, then that should not be blatantly false.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Whenever I point out that a fighter can have proficiencies, don't need to min-max, potentially take feats if they really feel like they need expertise there's a common response. "But other classes can do that too!" The clear implication being that fighters have to have something different and special that other classes can't also do. I'm not saying you have done that.

"Different and special that other classes can't do" is not the same as "better than every other class" out of combat. For example giving the Fighter the ability to train a rabble of commoners into an effective fighting force during a short period of downtime is not something any other class can do. It is different and special. However it does not make the fighter better than every other class out of combat.
Neither "different", not "special" are words that directly equate to "powerful".

Claiming that people who want the fighter to have more options for non-combat situations than they do currently, are demanding that they be made better than every other class is not a logical conclusion.
Why did you make it?