D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Snarf Zagyg]

Finally, for those still looking for a 4e fix but not having a copy of the original game, I thought I'd try and be of help.

Retroclones-

D&D 4E - Introducing Orcus -- a 4E retroclone

Last year, I launched a 4E retroclone called Orcus. I've posted about it in a few other places, but never shared it here -- which I wanted to correct now. I'm very open to contributions from others, whether that's homebrew material you've created or proposing balance/gameplay fixes to the...

www.enworld.org

D&D Retroclones

(For this, go down to the 4e section.)

Un4tunately, there aren't a lot of them that I am aware of.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I thought about making this a separate thread, and maybe I will at some point,

Please don't. We all know how it's going to go.

"Fighters suck, they can't do anything nice."
"Don't know what you're talking about, I've never seen that issue."
"Good for you, but I have, and I think they suck."

Then go back and forth for 500 posts about whose opinion should matter more than the others' when it comes to how the game should be designed.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Please don't. We all know how it's going to go.

"Fighters suck, they can't do anything nice."
"Don't know what you're talking about, I've never seen that issue."
"Good for you, but I have, and I think they suck."

Then go back and forth for 500 posts about whose opinion should matter more than the others' when it comes to how the game should be designed.

That's why I didn't, but if I do in the future, it would be more about generally looking at what revealed preferences tell us about design decisions, as opposed to what we know to be true.

 

[tetrasodium]

That is incorrect.

Warlords aren't in 5e because WOTC took a stance that new classes would only be created if the setting demands it.
They attempted to fold it into the fighter, hoping 4e fans would be happy. But like I said way in the beginning, there wasn''t enough design space in the battlemaster to please anyone.

That's why only artificers are official. Psions was coming with Dark Sun but WOTC dropped Dark Sun so they stopped with the difficult development of it.

I mostly skipped 4e and don't really have any positive neutral or negative feelings strong or weak about the warlord but think there is a second reason. 5e is the edition that tried so hard to ensure nothing was a thing the group would consider a required thing for someone to play or specialize in. In a lot of ways that went far enough to also make it rather hostile to the concept of support classes and other reciprocity laden character concepts. The warlord's sin against 5e is the same as support casters and such, namely that it's focus was on reciprocity rather than DP/R

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

I thought about making this a separate thread, and maybe I will at some point, but instead will make the following two points quickly-

1. Revealed preferences. As I have noted repeatedly, Fighters are the most popular class. That means that despite what people keep saying, they are always the single most chosen class. So when people sit down and decide what they want to play, out of all the classes, they choose fighters. Now, you might say to yourself, "Well, if we had better fighters, then maybe they'd be ever more popular!" Okay. But that would be a problem. As it is, Fighters are too over-represented. Imagine if they went up to, say, 20% of all the classes picked. That would be more of a design issue that what they have now.

This is why I am saying that the argument used in the "fallacy" is wrong. When people say "nobody would play the fighter" as illustrated in the example they are assuming that people make their choice of class based entirely on the power of the class, but this is known to not be the case. The druid is one of the least popular classes and it has always been extremely strong, and in 3.5 the druid was absurdly overpowered.

Heck, I like fighters conceptually and I've played 2 fighters in 5E.

Just imagine running the comparison backwards. "My wizard doesn't get your hit points, or armor choices, or weapon choices. I can't do any of the athletic feats you do. If I wanted to, I'd have to blow all sorts of backgrounds and feats and do all these other things to make my character less cool. Why don't I have exactly what you have?"

I don't understand what your point is with that comment. But if we disregard theming then it's fairly trivial for a wizard to get all the armour choices and weapon choices by taking one level of fighter and then going bladesinger and using the shield spell. This gives them a more reliable AC and extra attacks too.

Yeah sure you sacrifice one level of casting, but consider the reverse. Does a fighter get anything of equal impact by going 1 level wizard and 19 levels fighter?

TLDR; more often that not, it seems like the majority of these threads are just a backdoor way of arguing about the warlord. Which, okay? I hope people get a class they like, or use homebrew, or use a 3PP. But just because you want something, doesn't mean that other people have (to quote the OP in a later post) "invalid opinions." We all have valid opinions, just some of those valid opinions happen to be enabled in 5e right now, and some aren't. Most of my valid opinions aren't in 5e, which sucks, but I deal with it.

That assumption is wrong, because I dislike the warlord. As a concept it is completely uninteresting to me. I wouldn't object to it existing in 5E, but it's not something I'd want to play. It was just a convenient example since that was the context from where I got the example.

 

[Tony Vargas]

C. People don't agree that unlike things must be compared. In other words, saying that martials must be compared to spellcasters is not the same as saying that a given first level wizard spell must be compared to a given first level wizard spell; instead, it's saying that a given third level wizard spell, cast by a specialist wizard, must be compared to a similar third level cleric spell, in terms of damage. So a person says, "Well, the cleric doesn't get fireball, so ..."

Fighters and Wizards aren't un-like things. They're both PC classes. Picking one or the other is an equally weighted choice.

I mostly skipped 4e and don't really have any positive neutral or negative feelings strong or weak about the warlord but think there is a second reason. 5e is the edition that tried so hard to ensure nothing was a thing the group would consider a required thing for someone to play or specialize in. In a lot of ways that went far enough to also make it rather hostile to the concept of support classes and other reciprocity laden character concepts. The warlord's sin against 5e is the same as support casters and such, namely that it's focus was on reciprocity rather than DP/R

The Cleric, Druid, Bard, Paladin, and Artificer are all capable 'support' classes.

4e touched off the edition war, the Warlord was a major poster boy for 4e, subjected to countless attacks. The expediency of avoiding it in the Next, healing the community, Big Tent, edition is obvious. So is the expediency of finding ways to spin that avoidance that don't sound so much like mere expediency. Arguably it's also ironic, a betrayal of the very idea, but it's expedient. And corporate America likes expediency almost as much as profits.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This is why I am saying that the argument used in the "fallacy" is wrong. When people say "nobody would play the fighter" as illustrated in the example they are assuming that people make their choice of class based entirely on the power of the class, but this is known to not be the case. The druid is one of the least popular classes and it has always been extremely strong, and in 3.5 the druid was absurdly overpowered.

So let's just stop here.

Let's assume, for just a second, that what you are saying is true. Let's assume (before getting into your multiclass hypotheticals, and your desire to optimize, and you need to put things into tiers, etc.) that you're right. That the classes aren't perfectly balanced, and won't be.

With that in mind, we can then get into the heart of the issue-

The fighter is the most chosen class. That means that people like it. They, to borrow phrase, can smell what the Rock is cooking. This is what they want.

Why do you discount what they want? Their opinions are just as valid as yours is. If people are getting what they want, then ... that's fine. Not everyone is you. It is not a fallacy to want something to different. Moreover, to tell other people that their opinions are "invalid" (as you did) or to claim that their desires are somehow the result of fallacious reasoning is the surest way to ensure that those people will most certainly not agree with what you're going to tell them.

As has been pointed out, it's not just what you say, it's also how you say it. Don't tell people why they are wrong- maybe, in the future, try and make a case for why people should agree with you because you're selling them something that they want.

I double-dog dare you to describe how totally awesome your favorite (game/playstyle) is, WITHOUT comparing it to any others.

 

[Oofta]

...
I don't understand what your point is with that comment. But if we disregard theming then it's fairly trivial for a wizard to get all the armour choices and weapon choices by taking one level of fighter and then going bladesinger and using the shield spell. This gives them a more reliable AC and extra attacks too.

Yeah sure you sacrifice one level of casting, but consider the reverse. Does a fighter get anything of equal impact by going 1 level wizard and 19 levels fighter?

That assumption is wrong, because I dislike the warlord. As a concept it is completely uninteresting to me. I wouldn't object to it existing in 5E, but it's not something I'd want to play. It was just a convenient example since that was the context from where I got the example.

It's also extremely easy for a fighter to take a level or two of rogue to get expertise in social skills. It actually synergizes really well with a dex fighter (or strength based if any weapon can sneak attack like we do). But that, apparently, isn't good enough.

 

[Mort]

I mostly skipped 4e and don't really have any positive neutral or negative feelings strong or weak about the warlord but think there is a second reason. 5e is the edition that tried so hard to ensure nothing was a thing the group would consider a required thing for someone to play or specialize in. In a lot of ways that went far enough to also make it rather hostile to the concept of support classes and other reciprocity laden character concepts. The warlord's sin against 5e is the same as support casters and such, namely that it's focus was on reciprocity rather than DP/R

But the bard, while it can be played/designed otherwise, is very much a support class. It's big strengths, outside of social, are making other classes more effective at what they do. WoTC has shown plenty of love for the 5e bard!

 

[tetrasodium]

.
The Cleric, Druid, Bard, Paladin, and Artificer are all capable 'support' classes.

4e touched off the edition war, the Warlord was a major poster boy for 4e, subjected to countless attacks. The expediency of avoiding it in the Next, healing the community, Big Tent, edition obvious... Arguably it's also ironic, a betrayal of the very idea, but it's expedient. And corporate America likes expediency almost as much as profits.

Largely support classes in name only. In order for a support class to be otherwise it needs to bring meaningful difference in party efficacy to the supported classes over just acting like The hero of the story speak to the hand with a shrug towards the idea of working with their support rather than expecting them to make it work on their own or be something else. 5e support casters never really rise above that outside of very specific scenarios the gm designed to somehow require them.