D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Pedantic]

That's funny, I've often heard the opposite opinion. Yet, it also referenced whack-a-mole.
the point being that whack-a-mole was a symptom of healing being inadequate, so the only use for it was to bring an ally back into the initiative ranking, hopefully, so he could act before being knocked back to 0 again... and that only sorta OK because of the relative action-efficiency of healing word.


Whoah. As above, healing is not efficient when used to try to keep ahead of monster damage, especially not the convenient up-and-at'em Healing Word. Any caster afflicted with Cure..Wounds on it's list is going to have to weigh the value of his slots and actions in most combats, vs the lives of his melee allies. (likely result - well, they can always roll up a new character)

The problem with healing is endemic to D&D combat in general, and lots of different solutions have been floated. Frankly, in-combat healing is generally pretty bad for the game, simply because D&D combat isn't very long. The action cost of healing requires that it be incredibly powerful relative to incoming damage to be worth doing, hence the modern "only if not doing it would cost my team an action/round" and/or "only if it doesn't take an action." The problem is that healing that actually is worth the action cost is warping in its own way. How many enemy actions are you undoing with your action, and how efficient would it be to do more of that than anything else? There's a surprisingly narrow balance point before you end up with "oops all clerics" (but not in the classic CoDZilla sense) being the most viable option. And worse, you get a sequencing problem, where you don't want to deploy your incredibly powerful healing until it will have full effect, which means you the difference between "optimally injured for healing" and "dead" becomes vitally important, and often, a recipe for hit point bloat as the designer tries to pad the edges for user experience.

If I had my druthers, healing would be sharply limited in combat, and largely either self directed, (Second Wind is a very low skill floor buff to the Fighter's HP pool really) or reactive, allowing a sharply limited set of last minute saves. Out of combat healing is a totally different beast.

 

[Pedantic]

Another aspect of the crab bucket is threatening expulsion from the bucket in order to enforce compliance. That's why D&D players love to tell people to get out of the space and play another game.

The bad argumentation of 'you want a complete copy of X' instead of listening to what people are actually describing and understanding there's more to the concept than the superficial rough sketch it has been flanderized to is new an exciting though.

You're never going to bridge the non-magical healing gap, and I've never seen much evidence the warlord argument is really about anything else. It's either essential or anathema and taking another stab at the warlord would require the game take a side.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yeah.

Typically when it comes to archetype replication, the core aspects desired are either

1. Frequency: You do the THING a lot. The warlock can do Eldritch Blast a lot. The rogue can Sneak Attack almost every turn.
2. Power: You can do the THING and it is impactful. A sorcerer might not be able to use Megamagic a lot but when they do, the encounter can shift.
3. Options. You have a library of the many of the THINGS in the archetype. The Wizard. Full Stop.

The issue with the Battlemaster is that it doesn't do any off these.

1. Frequency: Too Few Dice
2. Power: Maneuvers dont scale
3. Options. Your library is too small.

The thing about the Battlemaster is that it's a vanilla fighter plus. That is to say that if your core concept is a fighter it's a rival to the Champion with a few tricks. And some maneuvers (notably Precision and Riposte, and the skills) scale better than anything damage related thanks to Bounded Accuracy.

As a vanilla fighter plus it has most of the fighter problems - but does its job while the fighter does

 

[Neonchameleon]

You're never going to bridge the non-magical healing gap, and I've never seen much evidence the warlord argument is really about anything else. It's either essential or anathema and taking another stab at the warlord would require the game take a side.

And the thing is it's essential to a warlord - and to a very low magic game. But "Happy Meal Menus" aren't trying for that. They want everyone to have some choices they like and nothing to put other diners off.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You're never going to bridge the non-magical healing gap, and I've never seen much evidence the warlord argument is really about anything else. It's either essential or anathema and taking another stab at the warlord would require the game take a side.

Combat healing in 5e is burning garbage in the first place. Anyone trying to heal in combat to do anything but get someone back up is playing a sucker's game and trading that out for something else would only be a boost to the warlord.

What's really missing is all the movement and save manipulation.

The Battlemaster is a watered down Fighter with two warlord powers. It has half the abilities of the two builds set to the typical anemic trickle of abilities everyone who isn't a full caster gets, but it doesn't even have the other half of the core warlord abilities at that level.

 

[Minigiant]

The thing about the Battlemaster is that it's a vanilla fighter plus. That is to say that if your core concept is a fighter it's a rival to the Champion with a few tricks. And some maneuvers (notably Precision and Riposte, and the skills) scale better than anything damage related thanks to Bounded Accuracy.

As a vanilla fighter plus it has most of the fighter problems - but does its job while the fighter does

It's

1. the pet class as a ranger subclass
2. the shapeshifter class as a druid subclass
3. the psions class as a sorcerer subclass
4. the elementalism as a monk subclass

problem.

The main class has so much of the focus and so much of the power that you don't have enough design space in the subclass for the archetype to give the feeling

Let's shift from warlord.

A Shapeshifter class.​

The druid is the D&D movie is primarily a Shapeshifter.

You can't say it doesn't match the lore of the D&D.
You can't say it doesn't match the style of D&D.
It can't say the mechanic doesn't exist in D&D.

But I wouldn't be surprised if a loud vocal portion of the D&D community pushes against that concept because, once put down the paper, is stronger or more versatile than the fighter or the barbarian in multiple pillars.

I mean WOTC is still struggling on the druid.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The thing about the Battlemaster is that it's a vanilla fighter plus.

It's what a bog standard fighter should be capable of before subclass. and was until the shocking swerve at the end of Next.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It's what a bog standard fighter should be capable of before subclass. and was until the shocking swerve at the end of Next.

I disagree. I don't like dealing with maneuvers with fighters. A lot of people don't, judging by the past results. I have nothing against the battlemaster, but the "standard" fighter should have the least amount of fiddly bits of the rest of the fighters.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You're never going to bridge the non-magical healing gap, and I've never seen much evidence the warlord argument is really about anything else. It's either essential or anathema and taking another stab at the warlord would require the game take a side.

It really is similar to the psionics are magic/psionics are different thing. One side wants something, the other side doesn't just not want it - all they'd have to do is not use it - they can't accept letting anyone else have it (in the current edition, specifically, because, like, the old books are still there).

3.5 had psionics are magic/psionics are different, it was a choice. How, in a game as otherwise vague, malleable, and famously"just a starting point" as 5e, can a choice be anathema?

So, like, you could make Inpiring word and any other 5e Warlord option that restored hp, have the option to instead grant temp hp. Choice could be made when the option is chosen, so you don't have to worry about any athiests-in-foxholes backsliding when one is more useful than the other. DMs who felt strongly one way or the other could make a blanket call.

 

[FrogReaver]

You're never going to bridge the non-magical healing gap, and I've never seen much evidence the warlord argument is really about anything else. It's either essential or anathema and taking another stab at the warlord would require the game take a side.

That’s def part of it. But I don’t particularly have a problem with martial healing personally. It’s just I recognize it is against enough peoples play style that it’s typically best avoided.

That said, I think temp hp is actually better conceptually for warlords than healing. Temp hp applies to fresh ally’s. Something a leader should be inspiring to fight better.