D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[billd91]

I see where you're coming from, but that makes the Warlord seem like the Rod of Seven Parts: it will have some world shaking power if put together. It's really odd to not be able to actually play a character you want. Now in 2023 it's not the same thing, but when 5E launched, the Warlord very much was a thing and was popular. I think there was really someone who just hated the class and it has never been revisited (that's my conspiracy theory idea).

The warlord wouldn’t have to have world shaking powers to be an undesirable concentration of abilities. If WotC was noticing that the warlord’s teamwork-oriented powers were popular enough for the class to start dominating choices away from other traditional martial characters, then it might be in their best designing interests to break up the powers among other martials so no single choice dominated a subset of others.

 

[James Gasik]

The warlord wouldn’t have to have world shaking powers to be an undesirable concentration of abilities. If WotC was noticing that the warlord’s teamwork-oriented powers were popular enough for the class to start dominating choices away from other traditional martial characters, then it might be in their best designing interests to break up the powers among other martials so no single choice dominated a subset of others.

Now that is something I hadn't considered before. WotC claims to not particularly want a "must have" class to exist; they'd rather players play what they want. If a Warlord's force multiplier abilities simply improved any party to the degree that they were considered a "must have", that would be problematic (for WotC design).

Consider that this martial class that acts as a force multiplier without magic has to coexist with classes in a similar role that are 9-level casters (Cleric and Bard)- given WotC is infamously conservative with non-magical abilities to begin with anymore, if you make a Warlord competitive with casters, it would seem like a very powerful class to people who see an issue with caster v. martial balance.

If you don't, then it becomes very obvious that it's an underpowered class- either a waste of space, or validation for the caster v. martial debate.

TLDR; if Warlord is good or bad, it potentially showcases a weakness in 5e design.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Part of the problem is that many who have not personally experienced the caster gap simply cannot accept that it can still exist for others and that others’ experiences with the gap are valid. They seemingly honestly believe that their experiences are all that matter and represent the sum total of all possible experiences. It’s not a problem for them, therefore it cannot possibly be a problem for anyone else ever.

For others, myself included, the caster gap is such an obvious and constant problem that it might as well be a massive blinking neon sign you can see from space.

Perhaps those people also don't want the game to change for everyone to accommodate an issue they don't experience.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I've explained this many times in this thread.

Good for you.

That's the point of the thread.

Arnold won't allow a new warrior class that is better than the 2014 fighter in the exploration or social pillar or another aspect of combat.

I've not seen that anywhere. I've seen no complaints about the playtest fighter, for instance. I've been in every warlord or other martial new class thread, and I don't think I've ever seen that.

Bob cannot easily make a new warrior class that isn't better than the fighter in the exploration or social pillar or another aspect of combat that doesn't suck because there isn't enough design space. So Bob's warlord will outshine the 2014 fighter


The DM won't allow it as per the OP.


And that point is predicated on the difficulty of designing in the local optimum because the community won't allow adjustment of the global optimum.

If the local was not so restrictive, there would be no fallacious argument at all.

Since the argument in question almost entirely happens online, okay.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes.
But that's on me for assuming the proof was obvious.

I'm going to list 6 types of warrior classes

1. The simplistic 2014 5e fighter
2. A even more simplistic Fighter with clear exploration features like the 2012 DNDN Playtest
3. A complex Fighter than had Maneuvers in the core class like the "3rd" 2012 DNDN Playtest
4. A fighter that has Imp Crit or Maneuvers and a Social or Exploration role attached to each subclass like the late 2013 DNDN Playtest
5. The A5E fighter
6. The A5e marshal

My claim is that if you polled these 6 fighters amongst the 5e community today, one of them would reach majority,

What is my proof?

WOTC is adding elements of 2-6 to the 2024 version of 5th edition Fighter.​

How is that proof? The 2014 Fighter is so simple that any major addition to it is a rejection of the original. WOTC is QUICK to remove any playtest material that isn't popular and now fast to revert to the 2014 version if able. But they are still adding.

Adding cheese to a hamburger makes it a cheeseburger. If you add cheese, lettuce, and tomato to a plain hamburger, you didn't want a plain hamburger.

Good lord this is such a leap.

The playtest fighter is the same fighter. They made it do what it is meant to do better, they didn't change what it does.

 

[SteveC]

The warlord wouldn’t have to have world shaking powers to be an undesirable concentration of abilities. If WotC was noticing that the warlord’s teamwork-oriented powers were popular enough for the class to start dominating choices away from other traditional martial characters, then it might be in their best designing interests to break up the powers among other martials so no single choice dominated a subset of others.

Yes, that's the Crab Bucket part of this thread. Two points: the Warlord wasn't disproportionately powerful and didn't stop people from playing other classes in 4E. The Fighter itself was a very popular class in 4E and there really wasn't the talk that it was unbalanced. There simply was an attempt at balance by role.

And second: we already have Fighter classes that are widely different in power. If the Rune Knight and Champion can coexist, the Warlord can as well. I can play Gooigi from Luigi's Mansion with the Echo Night and that's okay (actually it's awesome and gave me a fun idea...). If we aren't balancing classes against each other by power then what's the problem?

But as a third bonus point: we can simply define the Warlord as supernatural and get away from this entire discussion. Call the class "The Voice of War" and say it channels divine powers with exactly the same abilities and voila: better than the Champion and no complaints because it's not marital any more.

 

[Minigiant]

Good lord this is such a leap.

The playtest fighter is the same fighter. They made it do what it is meant to do better, they didn't change what it does.

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.

 

[SteveC]

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.

 

[billd91]

Yes, that's the Crab Bucket part of this thread. Two points: the Warlord wasn't disproportionately powerful and didn't stop people from playing other classes in 4E. The Fighter itself was a very popular class in 4E and there really wasn't the talk that it was unbalanced. There simply was an attempt at balance by role.

And second: we already have Fighter classes that are widely different in power. If the Rune Knight and Champion can coexist, the Warlord can as well. I can play Gooigi from Luigi's Mansion with the Echo Night and that's okay (actually it's awesome and gave me a fun idea...). If we aren't balancing classes against each other by power then what's the problem?

But as a third bonus point: we can simply define the Warlord as supernatural and get away from this entire discussion. Call the class "The Voice of War" and say it channels divine powers with exactly the same abilities and voila: better than the Champion and no complaints because it's not marital any more.

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.

 

[Oofta]

This particular discussion is about bringing lacking classes up to parity, not to make them superior to all others.
It might be worth reading the example in the original post again.

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

Indeed. Feats are regarded as too rare and irrevocable in most cases. However other resources that allow you a range of choice in both what you can do, and how you use it allow much more experimentation into more niche and out of combat options.
Both spell slots and BM maneuvers (when the character has a certain amount) are often spent on out-of-combat capabilities once the character has enough abilities to keep themselves and their companions alive in the usual life-or-death situation that they commonly face.


I think he issue was that while for some people the Warblade abilities were too farfetched, more just didn't get the distinction between the Warblade and the actual anime, magical TOB class, the Swordsage. Thus the TOB was labelled as "making warriors anime/magical etc" without understanding that there was a non-anime option.

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.

I'm pretty sure the whole point of the thread was that comparison within a limited group, or using only limited examples is flawed if the wider picture is needed to give context. There was even another example based on the Vampiric touch spell supplied.
Unfortunately the initial illustration was a bit of a red flag and the point was obscured in the rush to attack or nitpick the example given.

*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.