D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Micah Sweet]

In reverse order:

IDK, I have no problem with that conversation. "This is the setting & campaign I want to run, these options fit it, these others don't. Would you rather play something else, I have quite the backlog? Or one of you could run..." "oh? No? OK...."

But, yeah, the point I wasn't making too well, was TSR didn't fix the martial/caster gap - it had balance, of it's own sort from the beginning... magic-users were under-powered and fragile at low levels, wildly OP at high levels, and in-between the grew from contributing to dominating. Overall, the whole MU experience, was arguably balanced.

3.0 broke that by making Casters OP all the time.


Insulting eachother, even being impolite, is against the CoC. Being stupid, confused, or lying, is not.

And, no, I don't agree that's the implication. There shouldn't be an implication about the people making an argument, the argument should be judged on it's merits. The OP pointed out a potential flaw in reasoning, whether it meets the definition of a fallacy or not, and tried for a catchy label.

Anyway, yes, intelligent people can look at the facts of the Martial/Caster Gap (itself, just another catchy label) and reach different conclusions: that it's not a problem, that it's a highly-desireable feature because casters should be superior, that the DM can just compensate for it, or that it should be fixed in a variety of very different mutually-incompatible ways that may well cause issue of their own.

But just denying it, like, "no, casters do not get a large number of varied and powerful daily resources" or, "sure, but martials also get a large number of varied and powerful daily resources?" No. Nobody does that.

Are you talking about 4e here? I said it worked, I just didn't like it, and I explained why. I really don't understand your argument here, but apparently I touched some sort of pain point for you.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't see how that's it at all.

For one thing, 5e already gives you magic in your martials, in the PH alone, we have the EK, the AT, all the monks except the Open Hand (and that's iffy), and the Totem Barbarian. There's totally magic in the martials.

That neither satisfies people bothered by the Martial/Caster Gap, nor does it outrage those who support it.

The Warlord concept is basically non-magical. There's room in for some magic, like, via MCing or feats or a sub-class like EK, but the concept - and all the implementations of the only official example we have, the 4e Warlord - gains no magical class abilities at all.

Nothing labeled as magic anyway. One could argue that its abilities tend toward the narrative more than other classes, but we're talking about 4e here, which leans that way more than any other D&D IMO.

 

[Oofta]

It won't help. You could provide a mathematical proof and they'd still argue.

Mathematical proof? Like comparing damage dealt over time? Because fighters win that one. Number of hits taken and survived?I don't think we need to really debate that one.

Then there's always the "but wizards teleport" argument. Which is true, but in my experience the reason teleport matters is because the group has it as an option. If it wasn't an option the BBEG would be down the block, not halfway around the world.

The roles are different. You can't "mathematically prove" anything, it depends on what you're measuring.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don't see how that's it at all.

Look, if people say something to you ... you can either choose to understand what they are telling you (even though you disagree), or you can choose to just keep arguing the same point at them in the hope that by insinuating, as you did earlier in the thread, that they are "stupid, confused, or lying" will cause them to suddenly agree with you?

Good luck!

Anyway, I'll look forward to the next time this pops up. Until then, I'll just have to believe my own lyin' eyes!

 

[overgeeked]

Mathematical proof? Like comparing damage dealt over time? Because fighters win that one. Number of hits taken and survived?I don't think we need to really debate that one.

Then there's always the "but wizards teleport" argument. Which is true, but in my experience the reason teleport matters is because the group has it as an option. If it wasn't an option the BBEG would be down the block, not halfway around the world.

The roles are different. You can't "mathematically prove" anything, it depends on what you're measuring.

You missed my point. Even if the OP could mathematically prove his point, people would still argue.

 

[Deset Gled]

It won't help. You could provide a mathematical proof and they'd still argue.

Trying to talk about the subjective opinions of others as if your opinions are mathematical proofs may actually be one of the main things that turns a discussion into an argument.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Nothing labeled as magic anyway. One could argue that its abilities tend toward the narrative more than other classes, but we're talking about 4e here, which leans that way more than any other D&D IMO.

Yeah, but then we're talking GNS, and that really is painful.

Are you talking about 4e here? I said it worked, I just didn't like it, and I explained why. I really don't understand your argument here, but apparently I touched some sort of pain point for you.

No, no, I'm fine as far as everything you've contributed to this discussion goes.

In that specific post I suppose I was being pendantic in wanting to point out that TSR D&D's set-up wasn't a solution to a problem, since it was implemented from the first, it was the status-quo ante. 3.0 therefor arguably introduced the problem.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The thing I mostly see regarding Warlords is people insisting it is just a Fighter sub, but if you let it do everything a Warlord should be able able to do on top of the core Fighter abilities, they say "Whoa! That's kind of OP, dude."

I don't say that. I want exactly that. Saying that for about 18 years now.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, but then we're talking GNS, and that really is painful.


No, no, I'm fine as far as everything you've contributed to this discussion goes.

In that specific post I suppose I was being pendantic in wanting to point out that TSR D&D's set-up wasn't a solution to a problem, since it was implemented from the first, it was the status-quo ante. 3.0 therefor arguably introduced the problem.

Oh, ok. That I totally get.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't say that. I want exactly that. Saying that for about 18 years now.

Do you want the fighter to be better too, or do you want that to be the fighter?