D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Scott Christian]

You're missing the math.

It's not the +2 to damage rolls.
It's the +2 to attack rolls.
If I went with a 13 Str, roll a 15, and miss.. I know it. I know I missed because I didn't have 16 STR. I know I didn't deal damage.

I am not missing the math. Not at all. I would like to say you are actually missing the big-picture math.

Not even close. That +1 isn't just a +1 to damage (and there are very few comparable weapons where the damage is that different). It's +1 to hit as well - and that alone is worth almost 10% of your damage. It's also +1 damage per attack. With most attacks doing damage in the low teens unless you have a seriously funky magic weapon. You're about 20% less effective at the team game with a +1 bonus, and about 40% with a +2

Again, I understand the math. I get that the strength plus goes toward "to hit" and damage.

And you know what else I know. That the 16 Cha I took that dropped by STR to 13 is doing jack squat. It's not dealing damage. It's not preventing damage.

Isn't this the same rub you use against having abilities that are more powerful than others. Charisma affects four separate skills, all of them associated with roleplay, you know, one of the other pillars. You just increased an entire pillar of play by giving yourself that charisma. And if you took some of those skills, wowsa! You improved that pillar by 25%!

Of course that doesn't matter, does it? Because the character you want should have the 25% in that roleplay pillar, and the best combat ability too. You see, it is never about tradeoffs, and that is why it is an impossible argument - because one side wants it all, and the other side thinks there should be tradeoffs because...

Rant -

(IMHO) The tradeoff players understand the game is not played in isolation. Every single argument team I-want-it-all proposes boils down to isolating a literal extra +1 or +2 to damage without ever looking at the big picture. It is about attacking every round and getting as much damage as you can. In isolation. It never considers how the game is actually played.

I honestly have to ask if your combats are like this? I mean, maybe they are (all the more reason to watch a video of you guys playing). If you play a fighter, do you get to attack every round? Are you always in range? Do you never have anything else to do during combat? Do you never try something that might not work that isn't an attack? Do you always see your opponent clearly? Does no one ever try to shut you down with a spell? (Which, by the way, that charisma might help against.)

No. To team I-want-it-all, the fighter loses 10%-20%. The fighter does not gain a pillar. The fighter does not increase one or two of their saving throws. The fighter doesn't even have anything else to do other than hit something. To me, that is either your DM's fault or the player's.

My fighter has had to hold onto a rope that was attached to a griffon instead of attacking. My fighter has had to protect a little girl. My fighter has had to try and keep a door shut. My fighter has had to run over to give a potion to a felled PC. My fighter has had to chase someone leaving. My fighter has had to watch an opponent to see if they can figure out what their motive/weakness was. My fighter has made intimidation checks? My fighter has had to catch a breakable bobble we needed that was about to burst? My fighter has had to hold an opponent down. My fighter has had to brush acid off another player. My fighter has tried to mitigate lair effects. My fighter has used boatloads of equipment during combat encounters: perfume, chalk, sails, etc. etc. etc.

Do the fighters at your tables never have to do these things? Do they whine if they have to do one of these things and don't get to complete their perfect damage every round?

I honestly feel as though the players that complain about this are really ones that don't play as players, but rather DM. Or they don't play 5e at all. They play video games, where you do attack every round, and all the pillars are separated like chapters in a book. But at our table, and every table I've played at for the past thirty years, it doesn't work like that. Pillars are mixed and meshed, they are spliced and knotted. And those knots allow you to use that extra charisma that you scoff at.

Maybe it's just me. But skills and equipment and saves and movement are all pretty integral parts of combat. It is never just attack & damage.

And something far worse than this also occurs in this argument: They pretend their character is playing a solo game. They do this in two ways: One, they always compare themselves against the other players. "No spotlight during a combat encounter for the fighter!" "The game is broken!" Two, they seem to refuse to acknowledge that the game's other PCs affect them constantly, thus altering the equation of doing X damage per round. I mean, a spell like faerie fire increases a fighter's chance to hit by a lot more than +1. And heaven forbid you have a fighter that crits on a 19 or 20. Damage output, am I right? So I guess by their logic, the PC not casting faerie fire is really trying to minimize the spotlight on the fighter.

This willful ignoring of the big picture, and the isolation of looking at a fighter through a micro-lens does not do the class any help. It just perpetuates some silly argument that a player should be able to make a character that is best in all things, all the time. And if they aren't, then the class is broken.

 

[Minigiant]

Imo. Feature not a bug.

Feature without an instruction manual.

Without a DMG that teach DMs how to use skills, it's a flawed list for new players.

 

[Scott Christian]

It seems you are happy having given up two ASIs and a +2 to broaden your character. It seems that even so, your character deals an acceptable level of damage for you.

My question is: does your character play like the skill specialist your investment in skills reflects?

My character plays like a fighter/urban bounty hunter that cares for the people he's with, that always tries to have a backup plan, that has a tell when he lies, and that is bound to do his job at Candlekeep due to an inadvertent indiscretion.

I know that's not the answer you are looking for. But that is the truth. He is a solid fighter, and good with the skills he chose. I guess the important part is what I mentioned earlier: Our game is not an isolated activity. Our combats, explorations, and roleplay pillars can mix, thus, making my character great at times, good at times, and ok at times. Never is he bad. But, I have yet to ever see a bad character that couldn't be all those things. I have seen players that hadn't learned they could do all those things.

Based on what you’ve written, your character is in a 5-person party and has;

• +6 in Athletics;
• + 4 in Deception;
• +4 in Intimidation;
• +4 in Insight;
• +4 in Investigation;
• +4 in Sleight of Hand;
• +4 in Stealth.

So, in your party of 5 players, how many:

• have an equal or higher Athletics?
• have an equal or higher Deception?
• have an equal or higher Intimidation?
• have an equal or higher Investigation?
• have an equal or higher Insight?
• have an equal or higher Stealth?
• have an equal or higher Sleight of hand?

Again, kind of like I wrote earlier, none of those questions matter. We have skill checks when we declare we are trying something, then the DM determines we need a check. Sometimes the ranger is not around to do the sneaking. Sometimes the fighter wants to try and pick the desk lock because he is there. Sometimes a PC lies and the DM calls for a deception check.

When you play, does your group always plot out exactly who has the best bonus for a skill check, and then only they do it? Does your group always have time to plot out things? Do your players never just blurt out things like, "Can I use insight to see if they are lying?" Does your DM never just say to a single player, "Give me a _________ roll?"

I guess, if none of those things ever happen and you always get to plot out who the min/maxer of the roll is, I can see the argument. But we sometimes plan, we sometimes don't, and we sometimes can't. The main reason for this is because we are roleplaying characters.

 

[Oofta]

Feature without an instruction manual.

Without a DMG that teach DMs how to use skills, it's a flawed list for new players.

Good grief. I learned to play when the books were an unholy contradictory mess. We didn't have blogs or streams, no forum to ask questions. Yet somehow by some miracle we learned by sitting down and playing the game.

Yes, the books especially the DMG, could use improvement. But this idea that players can only follow the literal text of the book like unthinking robots is simply not true. People learn the game by doing just like we always have. Just like people likely will be even when we get improved books in 2024. Because you don't really learn how to play the game by reading text, you learn by doing.

 

[James Gasik]

Granted, when the books were an unholy contradictory mess, you quickly made your own rules.

 

[Minigiant]

Isn't this the same rub you use against having abilities that are more powerful than others. Charisma affects four separate skills, all of them associated with roleplay, you know, one of the other pillars. You just increased an entire pillar of play by giving yourself that charisma. And if you took some of those skills, wowsa! You improved that pillar by 25%!

I've explained this.

The issue is that

Wizards of the Coast designed 5E with FOUR of their 13 classes Charisma based and made FOUR of their five Social Skills be Charisma Based while having every character in this team game have FOUR to SIX skills trained. And the default rules of 5e has most social encounters be single rolls.

I have never play a game of 5e with 4 or more people without a Charisma Class.​

"Well you aren't going to out roll the bard" Well unless you ban classes there is a high chance there will be a bard, paladin, sorcerer, or warlock. or arcane trickster. Or a Single Ability Dependent build of cleric, druid, or wizard.

(IMHO) The tradeoff players understand the game is not played in isolation. Every single argument team I-want-it-all proposes boils down to isolating a literal extra +1 or +2 to damage without ever looking at the big picture. It is about attacking every round and getting as much damage as you can. In isolation. It never considers how the game is actually played.

I honestly have to ask if your combats are like this? I mean, maybe they are (all the more reason to watch a video of you guys playing). If you play a fighter, do you get to attack every round? Are you always in range? Do you never have anything else to do during combat? Do you never try something that might not work that isn't an attack? Do you always see your opponent clearly? Does no one ever try to shut you down with a spell? (Which, by the way, that charisma might help against.)

Sure they do.

Again none of this matters.
Because without my many houserules a fighter or barbarian can't use their 16 Charisma that they trading off from in combat.

And without Cha saving throw proficiency, 14 CHA doesn't do much in the roll. And isn't not WOTC made many CHA save spells.

A fighter with 14 Strength and 16 Charisma using Core Rules isn't getting much in out of their Charisma in combat and can be easily overshadowed by a bard, paladin, sorcerer, warlock. or arcane trickster in Charisma checks in social interaction.

 

[Minigiant]

Good grief. I learned to play when the books were an unholy contradictory mess. We didn't have blogs or streams, no forum to ask questions. Yet somehow by some miracle we learned by sitting down and playing the game.

Yes, the books especially the DMG, could use improvement. But this idea that players can only follow the literal text of the book like unthinking robots is simply not true. People learn the game by doing just like we always have. Just like people likely will be even when we get improved books in 2024. Because you don't really learn how to play the game by reading text, you learn by doing.

The rules where different back then..

WOTC designed a game that was supposed to play like using the old rules but with the new rules. Using chess piece movement to play checkers.

The rules for classes, races, skills, and monsters changed a lot and have more numbers involved. So fixes are more involved. And when the rules have bugs or errors, more experience and knowledge is needed to fix it. That's why many people go back to older editions and retroclones.

Easier to fix skills, if there are no skills.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Good grief. I learned to play when the books were an unholy contradictory mess. We didn't have blogs or streams, no forum to ask questions. Yet somehow by some miracle we learned by sitting down and playing the game.

I learned with that unholy mess of rules as well. And that’s why I’m a huge cheerleader for simpler rules, and minimizing contradictions.

Yeah, you and I stuck with the game, but I know quite a few people who bounced off of it or who never started because of the impenetrable thicket of rules.

It’s absolutely the case that when WotC launched the game in 2014, they didn’t think it was going to blow up. Their focus was on bringing back 2e and 3e players and it shows. WotC admits that the DMG was rushed, and it shows.

The way WotC thought the game was going to played in 2014 (with 6 to 8 encounters between long rests) isn’t the way most new players play, because the big streaming shows don’t consistently have 6-8 encounters between long rests).

These are things that will likely be changed in the new iteration of D&D, and this is a good thing.

 

[Oofta]

The rules where different back then..

WOTC designed a game that was supposed to play like using the old rules but with the new rules. Using chess piece movement to play checkers.

The rules for classes, races, skills, and monsters changed a lot and have more numbers involved. So fixes are more involved. And when the rules have bugs or errors, more experience and knowledge is needed to fix it. That's why many people go back to older editions and retroclones.

Easier to fix skills, if there are no skills.

Right. D&D is failing, sales are plummeting, you can't find anyone to game with because nobody can figure it out for themselves, find help in blogs, watch streamed shows.

Sad really, all because some people don't understand how important it is to have charisma based characters and the game collapses without them.

I've played plenty of games without a charisma based character. I play in one and DM in another, we currently don't have one in either. My last campaign had one for a while, it was a long term campaign and one person wanted to switch PCs, the game worked just fine. Maximized sky high persuasion checks are rarely, if ever, needed in any game I've ever played.

 

[Minigiant]

Right. D&D is failing, sales are plummeting, you can't find anyone to game with because nobody can figure it out for themselves, find help in blogs, watch streamed shows.

Sad really, all because some people don't understand how important it is to have charisma based characters and the game collapses without them.

I've played plenty of games without a charisma based character. I play in one and DM in another, we currently don't have one in either. My last campaign had one for a while, it was a long term campaign and one person wanted to switch PCs, the game worked just fine. Maximized sky high persuasion checks are rarely, if ever, needed in any game I've ever played.

Never said D&D is failing. Dismissing my argument is not disproving it.

5e is a great system.

But including 4 of your 12 Charisma classes in the PHB and having all the active social skills be Charisma with no mitigation for that is bad design objectively.