D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Minigiant]

I think we are in agreement, I was calling out the garbage premise that was trotted out earlier that the Fighter having a background makes up for any disparity in out of combat ability.

Background COULD HAVE been an option if Fighters, Barbarians, and other martial got one Expertise.

That is ultimately a flaw of 5e and the cause of the crab bucket.

Every PC in 5e should have chosen a:

1. Race
2. Class
3. Background
4. Feat
5. Expertise

Rogues and other experts should get 2 bonus Expertises.

 

[Eubani]

Background COULD HAVE been an option if Fighters, Barbarians, and other martial got one Expertise.

That is ultimately a flaw of 5e and the cause of the crab bucket.

Every PC in 5e should have chosen a:

1. Race
2. Class
3. Background
4. Feat
5. Expertise

Rogues and other experts should get 2 bonus Expertises.

Also Spell lists should be more strongly themed and limited/curated as well as spells being better balanced. There should always be a good reason to do something in a non magical way with a casting of spell having some sort of cost or issue that forces a consideration if in fact a spell is the best answer. We have learned over the years "limited slots" is not enough.

 

[Scribe]

Conversely, I would say that 0, 3, 3 is not balanced. By definition. These three are the "pillars" of the game. They are what the game was made for being. Choosing genuinely 0--literally having nothing to contribute--means rejecting the fundamental premises of play. At that point, you should be playing some other game, because you are openly saying you oppose the things the game is built to do.

That's my serious issue with a lot of this sort of thing...and the idea of spotlight balance. Asymmetrical is good--necessary, even--but "completely opt out of core gameplay patterns" is neither.

Instead of fostering "spotlight balance," where one person gets to be awesome and everyone else gets to hurry up and wait, we should be fostering something more like..."floodlight and flash" balance. Everyone is reasonably competent. Not amazing, not impressive, just basic, ol' reliable performance. But you have flashes of being especially impressive in what you've chosen to be great at. From there, choosing to become great at more things or choosing to be especially great at what you already know should both be valid choices.

"Spotlight balance" just encourages people to keep the spotlight on themselves as long as possible, and to make it so the group gets more benefit when the spotlight shines on them than it does when it shines on anyone else. Game design that encourages and rewards such selfish, even narcissistic behavior should be avoided, not celebrated.

Instead of making 0, 3, 3 work, I say we move toward a system where you have 9 points, max 5 in any category, and you must have a minimum of 1 in everything.

So you can do 1, 3, 5 or 3, 3, 3 or the like. You can't choose to be incompetent at anything, but you also can't choose to be overwhelming at anything (aka 1, 1, 7)--the absolute bottom and top end are disallowed. This permits a spectrum of options; indeed, a pretty significant variety:
1, 3, 5
1, 4, 4
2, 2, 5
2, 3, 4
3, 3, 3

This is a fine take. I don't care personally, about social pillar. I don't care if I ever need to participate in it. I'm more than happy to cede the floor.

So why should I be forced to put resources towards it?

Your 1/3/5 example, if 1 is social it's paying lip service to the idea but effectively its a 0 because gamers optimize.

"What's your dump stat."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is a fine take. I don't care personally, about social pillar. I don't care if I ever need to participate in it. I'm more than happy to cede the floor.

So why should I be forced to put resources towards it?

Because the game is designed with that as one of the elements of play.

Why should soccer players put effort into goal kicks, if their primary interest is the center-back position? Because that's one of the things the game is designed to feature, and being inadequate in those skills means you're trying to just not play part of the game that you'll be expected to play.

Your 1/3/5 example, if 1 is social it's paying lip service to the idea but effectively its a 0 because gamers optimize.

Nah. 1 means you're still competent--you just don't have anything more than actual competence. You have moments where you contribute something that stands out--"flashes," as I put it--but they're uncommon because you don't have as many tools in that department.

Actually having nothing significant to contribute--actually having NO meaningful, distinct tools--is unacceptable.

And "because gamers optimize" is just as much a white-room argument as the other stuff above. Yes, some gamers do optimize. If you ensure that putting 1 point in something is still a valid choice, meaning it actually IS worthwhile even if it is just mostly workhorse, then it's perfectly fine to do 1/3/5. Especially if there are flavor associations with these various picks, rather than a perfect build-it-yourself thing.

E.g.: take Exploration/Combat/Socialization. If the Wizard is 2/3/4, the Fighter may be 3/5/1. Those are in-built with the class trappings and structure, so it's no longer a simple matter of "choose the optimal thing, done." Playstyle factors into it, because different mechanical implementations can be more or less pleasing to a given player. Thematic preferences factor into it, because different story can affect whether you actually enjoy taking a particular approach. And growth factors in too--if you can spend character resources as you level to gain +1 to two different pillars, that can force diversification even if you're still trying to optimize. Say every 4 levels you get +1/+1--now a 20th level Fighter can be, at the absolute most optimal, somewhere between 8/10/1 and 5/10/4. Still specialized! But something else still grows at the same time, and the relative difference between 8/10/1 and 7/10/2 (or whatever) may be worth it.

"What's your dump stat."

Again, this substitutes a serious response with a referenced, but unsupported, argument. Just because people can dump a stat does not therefore mean that doing that particular thing is identical to having nothing meaningful that you bring to the table by virtue of your class specifically.

There are tools you can give players which do not care whether they have "dumped" a stat or not. You can design tools that can make a distinctive, meaningful contribution even to things that generally don't interest the player, but which can at least let them feel it was important, not just that they were there, but that they were there as the particular class they chose.

 

[Scribe]

Why should soccer players put effort into goal kicks, if their primary interest is the center-back position?

The Goalie doesnt. How many NFL linemen are running routes and working on their tackling?

To suggest gamers dont optimize, in the face of the REAMS of "I need 16 baseline in my primary or my character cannot function!" nonsense? Come on.

 

[Oofta]

Then you've missed the point of what @Eubani said.

People respond to statements like, "The Fighter gets effectively nothing to support non-combat activity" with statements like "Sure they do, it's called 'race' and 'background.'"

Those things are irrelevant. Because absolutely everyone gets them. They are the zero point, the necessary and inherent baseline to not be completely incompetent. You cannot use the zero point features to argue against the point that Fighters don't get nice things. It's not a "nice thing" to get a complementary sandwich when the Wizard gets the exact same complementary sandwich AND free dessert.

The argument that "fighters can't contribute outside of combat" is false. Just like the fact that other classes can also be built to contribute outside of combat is irrelevant.

The only thing that is relevant is that if you want a fighter that can contribute outside of combat is that there are options. Those options don't also require expertise.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The argument that "fighters can't contribute outside of combat" is false. Just like the fact that other classes can also be built to contribute outside of combat is irrelevant.

Good thing I didn't make that argument then.

Fighters cannot contribute anything outside of combat that anyone else couldn't do just as well, and often significantly better.

There is literally nothing you can do because you are a Fighter that contributes meaningfully outside of combat. And anyone can contribute the things that race and background contribute. You can be a Wizard, or Paladin, or whatever else, with the exact same race and background as the Fighter had...while having a bunch of other benefits.

There is no out of combat situation where anyone can say, "Man, it's so good you played Fighter and not something else!" That, right there, is the problem.

 

[Minigiant]

The argument that "fighters can't contribute outside of combat" is false. Just like the fact that other classes can also be built to contribute outside of combat is irrelevant.

The only thing that is relevant is that if you want a fighter that can contribute outside of combat is that there are options. Those options don't also require expertise.

The issue is that D&D 5e is a one check system with condensed skill list

Only one person rolls and it is highly likely that the fighter has the lowest bonus.

Fans don't enforce languages and they're quick to invalidate it. For a condensed strength and dexterity skills and added few to compensate the focus of primary strength or dexterity classes. Fans don't enforce exploration challenges, make them one check normally, and are quick to invalidate them.

All because the fans during the playtest decided that they want 5th edition to be simple and small at its core without adjusting the game towards a simple and small roster of bonuses.

 

[Oofta]

Good thing I didn't make that argument then.

Fighters cannot contribute anything outside of combat that anyone else couldn't do just as well, and often significantly better.

So? They don't need to.

There is literally nothing you can do because you are a Fighter that contributes meaningfully in combat. And anyone can contribute the things that race and background contribute. You can be a Wizard, or Paladin, or whatever else, with the exact same race and background as the Fighter had...while having a bunch of other benefits.

There is no out of combat situation where anyone can say, "Man, it's so good you played Fighter and not something else!" That, right there, is the problem.

If I'm most concerned about contributing outside of combat I'll play a bard or rogue. I can also play a fighter because I enjoy the class and build them so that I feel like I can contribute meaningfully outside of combat.

There's no reason a fighter has to be better out of combat than every other class, that's the role of bards and rogues. If I absolutely need my character that is not a bard or rogue to have that kind of optimization (P.S. you don't) I can always take a feat or a level or two of bard or rogue.

I'm done arguing about an issue I have not seen playing with dozens of players and multiple DMs for nearly a decade.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Actually having nothing significant to contribute--actually having NO meaningful, distinct tools--is unacceptable.

To you, apparently. Not to many others.

For me, only not having the option to put 1 in each pillar would be a problem, and 5e doesn’t do that. Backgrounds by themselves allow you to put at least 1 wherever you want.