D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Micah Sweet]

My take on it is that you want balance so different characters can interact at about the same level and have as much time to do things in a game session. I would really like it if we would fully expand the social and exploration pillars so that each class has something they can do during a session, but that seems unlikely. If a fighter doesn't have anything to do in the social or exploration parts of the game (and by that I mean they have no class features that apply there) I would expect them to be awesome in combat. If a game is a mix of all three pillars, then the fighter can feel awesome when you say "roll initiative" while the bard can be awesome in social situations and the rogue or ranger can be great at exploring. To me, that's balance.

The problem that I have seen is unless you run an adventuring day outside of where I've really ever seen, the fighter isn't at the top of class performance in combat. And more than that, different fighters (say a champion versus rune knight or echo knight) have significant variation within the same class.

So I guess the balance is in terms of where an individual character gets to excel at something in a session. I just came out of a game where there was a player with a fighter who gradually became more frustrated because they weren't the best in combat.

I really don't understand why modern versions of D&D don't let fighters be the best in combat. It literally mystifies me.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I really don't understand why modern versions of D&D don't let fighters be the best in combat. It literally mystifies me.

I always find that amusing - because I'm a sick, cynical, jaded old man - because the Next playtest's many shifting, mostly impossible, goals included setting the bar for the the fighter.

The Fighter would be:

"Best at Fighting!" (yay!)
"...with weapons..." (oh, OK, so the Monk can be better at unarmed combat than an unarmed fighter?)
"...and without magic..." (wait, so as soon as someone picks up a magic sword or casts a spell, all bets are off, they can show up the fighter in combat?)



TBF, in a balanced game, tho, no one would be best at anything as broad as a "pillar" - the fighter might be the toughest, or the best at "tanking" enemies, but other characters might be 'best' at incinerating large groups of low-power enemies, breaking up enemy formations, saving downed allies, or other specific things that come up in combat, and generally capable outside of said superlative, as well.

 

[Scribe]

In a perfect world, maybe. But that’s not how D&D is designed. Every class gets a 2-3 in combat and classes get between 0-3 in social and exploration. And the totals are not equal. Oh, and combat is mechanically far more important than the other two combined, takes up far more time than the other two combined, and is the focus of the game.

Which again to me is not only fine, but acceptable for the type of balance being looked for.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I always find that amusing - because I'm a sick, cynical, jaded old man - because the Next playtest's many shifting, mostly impossible, goals included setting the bar for the the fighter.

The Fighter would be:

"Best at Fighting!" (yay!)
"...with weapons..." (oh, OK, so the Monk can be better at unarmed combat than an unarmed fighter?)
"...and without magic..." (wait, so as soon as someone picks up a magic sword or casts a spell, all bets are off, they can show up the fighter in combat?)

"...and guess how weirdly we're going to define magic..."

 

[overgeeked]

Which again to me is not only fine, but acceptable for the type of balance being looked for.

Huh. Then we have wildly divergent definitions of balance.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Huh. Then we have wildly divergent definitions of balance.

If you both articulate those definitions, it might make things a bit clearer?

"...and guess how weirdly we're going to define magic..."

How weird can that be? Obviously, divine spellcasting, divine special abilities like paladin smites, primal spellcasting & abilities, arcane spells, psionic spells, and anything powered by ki are all magic.

Thus a Battlemaster can be better at fighting than a Thief, Assassin, Berserker, or, um, uh... Champion Fighter!

 

[Vaalingrade]

How weird can that be? Obviously, divine spellcasting, divine special abilities like paladin smites, primal spellcasting & abilities, arcane spells, psionic spells, and anything powered by ki are all magic.

Taunting, grazing blows, and focusing on an enemy to an advantage. Also too magical for a fighter.

 

[Scribe]

Huh. Then we have wildly divergent definitions of balance.

That's the issue. There is no one definition.

Warrior vs Mage vs Rogue vs Cleric.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Because social is more, well, social than mechanical generally, and because WotC doesn't care about exploration no matter what they say. Move beyond WotC, and D&D has all sorts of exploration options.

If that were the case, there would be very few social features, and they would be pretty useless.

Except we know that isn’t the case. Some classes get a lot of features that are extremely useful for the social pillar.

So the problem isn’t that the social pillar is “handwavy”. The problem is that someone decided that fighters and barbarians get zero support for the social pillar, whereas others get a great deal more.

 

[overgeeked]

That's the issue. There is no one definition.

Ish. I think it's more a matter of people not being specific. Combat balance, spotlight balance, etc. People just default to saying "balance" instead of being specific and end up talking past each other. And those definitions are not equal. If someone's sole idea of balance is spotlight time, then that will be utterly unsatisfying as balance for someone who wants combat or option balance, for example. Like you and I. Your choice of balance is utterly useless as a balancing mechanism for my preferences. And I'm sure the reverse is also true.