D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Scribe]

Why should I be shackled by your lack of interest, simply because I like playing martial characters?

You arent, you have 3 other ways to optimize your character for social interaction.

 

[Minigiant]

That's certainly an issue, in itself. Ability checks are limited in what they can do, binary, and with little wiggle room. Under BA, only the most specialized of Experts can make a skill check somewhat reliably that most of their buddies couldn't hope to make. Who 'contributes' with a successful skill check is almost random. It's, what, the Bard & Rogue that get expertise? Really, those two classes, in skills they can afford a high stat in & take expertise in, are the only ones that can point to exceptional skill as a meaningful contribution, and, even then, only at a level where proficiency bonuses get significant.

OTOH, That the skill list is "condensed" (to be only slightly larger than the prior edition, and padded out by Tool proficiencies?) is not part of the problem. The larger the skill list, the more incompetence there is to go around, and the further behind that puts PCs wholly dependent on mundane skills.

As bad as that sounds, it's not as bad as 3.x, which had a voluminous skill list, and a progression that caused you to fall ever further behind in all but the handful you specialized in.

4e solved these problems by

1. having a multiple check roll for major obstacles (skill challenges),
2. additional skills (Endurance and Streetwise),
3. assumption of using skills in situation not completely capable but relevant (Using Streetwise or History in Exploration in urban environments).
4. giving out tons of feats so taking a flavor or noncombat feat isn't a combat cost.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yeah, who wants to actually play the game when you can sit quietly and stack dice?

 

[Minigiant]

You arent, you have 3 other ways to optimize your character for social interaction.

One id optional. And the other two are utterly outclasses greatly by Primary Ability score users.

And D&D 5e is a One Check System.

Only one person disarms the trap, tricks the guard, or identifies the glyph.

 

[Scribe]

One id optional. And the other two are utterly outclasses greatly by Primary Ability score users.

And D&D 5e is a One Check System.

Only one person disarms the trap, tricks the guard, or identifies the glyph.

And?

In that case why are people square peg round hole solving a problem that doesn't exist?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Then solve for it with your species, background, or a feat. The tools exist.

Again, those don't solve anything. Everyone has them. They make no difference here.

You arent, you have 3 other ways to optimize your character for social interaction.

Nope. They are not optimization. They are the zero point. Every character MUST have those.

 

[Scribe]

Again, those don't solve anything. Everyone has them. They make no difference here.

Nope. They are not optimization. They are the zero point. Every character MUST have those.

Everyone has every background?

Yes, Everyone has A Background/Species, and I highly doubt Feats will be optional in 2024, AND Wizards is making small changes to throw Barbarian and Fighter a bone in other pillars.

I still see no problem. Fighter is there to smash. Take a Background if you want to diversify your character in a way other than smashing.

 

[Stormonu]

I think where all of this comes in focus is with the Champion Fighter. This is the most vanilla version of a class that you can get, set at the lowest power base in the game. It's good at swinging a sword and that is all it is pretty much designed to do. All other subclasses and classes are upwardly mobile in options, abilities and power. It is geared towards the gamer who just wants a no-nonsense experience to fighting monsters without having to track maneuvers, spells, or any other sort of resource beyond hit points.

Where the problem is that when folks attempt to add to the overall fighter's repertoire, this subclass holds the design space hostage. "Can't do that, it's too supernatural," is the general cry, and thus the fighter gets stuck in plate, holding a shield and swinging a sword - and not doing much else.

I am not for the craziness that we saw in 3.5E's Tome of Battle, but it is time to drop the shackles of the Champion Fighter. The class isn't even allowed to reach olympic-level abilities let alone the mythical abilities of stories and legends. There still needs to be that basic Champion Fighter for those that want a straightforward character, but its abilities need to be better than simply swinging a sword three or four times in a row. The greatest difficulty is to give the Champion Fighter those needed abilities in a way that doesn't require a player's mental load to remember the smorgasbord of options available to them, and simply just "works" (I can't tell you how many times I've had casual Champion Fighter players fail to use Second Wind simply because they forget they have it).

And do it in a way that does not marginalize the Ranger further (whose already lost his wilderness and tracking specializations to letting everyone in on those once specialized abilities), nor overshadow the Barbarian or Paladin.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's not that the fighter isn't best in combat in modern D&D.

It's that everyone is not far behind. The Fighter is tier A. Everyone is Tier B or has a subclass that brings them to Tier B. Tier C is empty. And Tier D is just noncombat classes taking noncombat subclasses.

Which wouldn't be a problem if the fighter could pick a subclass to be B in social or exploration. But they can't.

You see the same thing with races. Races with flexibility like choosable spells, skills, or minifeats rank high. The races with powerful features are slightly higher. And the rest are "in the terlet" as my grandfather would say because "power" is focused on a niche and races overall have little power to play with and usable have no customization within.

--

It's all like something I said back ing the TCOE days with flexible ASI.

5e was designed around everyone playing stereotypes and DMs running stereotypical worlds.

It wasn't designed for you to play against type like many players would eventually want to.

And went the designers decided to support Alternatives and Subversions of Stereotypes, it was uneven due to:

1. Slow schedule
2. Limited design space
3. Lack of forward thinking in 5edesign
4. Lack of drive in Official designers for it
5. Lack of restraint in 3PPs

---

The "Crab Bucket" fallacy is mostly due to the limited design space of core 5e without introducing power creep OR gutting the system ala A5e.

Well, I wouldn't mind if fighters were a little "more better" at fighting than everyone else than they are in WotC 5e.

 

[Minigiant]

And?

In that case why are people square peg round hole solving a problem that doesn't exist?

The problem exists.

The 5e designers outwardly said it does and added an extra feat at level 1 for this very purpose in the 2024 version.