D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Neonchameleon]

Nah. Not really. That's literally why they did what they did with Proficiency. It only becomes two-digit at the highest levels if you have Expertise. Otherwise it's a two digit number (most rolls) plus two one-digit numbers (ability score and proficiency.)

You're forgetting the stat modifier.

If both numbers were freely allowed to be two-digit then there would never have been a problem with 4e's math, because you never add numbers beyond that, except for calculating HP, which remains true in 5e.

The problem with 4e's math wasn't the two two digit numbers so much as it was the extra three modifiers on top to remember.

 

[Neonchameleon]

There is an actually good Fighter, that sees the most use out of any class.

There is an actually good concept behind the fighter which is why it sees a lot of use. The other half of deciding whether it is good is whether there is general satisfaction. And the answer to that as Crawford revealed is "no" and that there's a lot of dissatisfaction.

People want to play fighter-types. They just find that the one we have falls short.

 

[tetrasodium]

Does the rest of the world have math phobia like America does? (The 10 Deutschmark bill used to have Gauss on it and the normal probability density function written out).

I think it's just the current evolution of stormwind in a more presentable form or something similar. If the math is too simplified for meaningful depth in CharOp functionality then the game becomes pure for the true R O L E players once all those dirty R O L L players are forced to behave kinda thing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There is an actually good concept behind the fighter which is why it sees a lot of use. The other half of deciding whether it is good is whether there is general satisfaction. And the answer to that as Crawford revealed is "no" and that there's a lot of dissatisfaction.

People want to play fighter-types. They just find that the one we have falls short.

But if people are still playing them regardless, where's the benefit to WotC to make a big fix?

 

[Neonchameleon]

But if people are still playing them regardless, where's the benefit to WotC to make a big fix?

To prevent people getting disillusioned with 5e. And to sell a lot of people a new version of the bestselling D&D book in history (the 5e PHB). The single most popular class is the fighter - so by improving the disappointing implementation they have more chance selling the 2024 PHB to people who already own the 2014 version

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You're forgetting the stat modifier.

"Ability score and proficiency" was meant to cover that. I should have said modifier, however.

The problem with 4e's math wasn't the two two digit numbers so much as it was the extra three modifiers on top to remember.

I just don't see how that's that much different from what 5e already has, but okay.

But if people are still playing them regardless, where's the benefit to WotC to make a big fix?

Have you ever played (or eaten, or read, or whatever) something because you believed you liked it, and then played(/eaten/read/etc.) something else, which blew your mind as to how much better it was in ways you couldn't even have conceived before doing so?

Have you ever played/etc. something because it was tolerable and readily available, even if it wasn't really something you liked?

Have you ever played/etc. something because you could make a whole bunch of changes to it that made it suit you better, even though those changes might go far afield from the original thing, and possibly be much more effort/expense/etc. than the unmodified thing?

Have you ever played/etc. something that was genuinely not to your taste, but everything else was even less your speed, so you picked the thing that fit best while hoping for something better?

Most of these questions are rhetorical, because I know your answer for most of them is "yes," given your advocacy of Level Up. But the point stands. Something can be widely-used, "popular" even, and yet still be not very good at all.

Consider Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter (which I refuse to call by its stupid new name.) Many folks openly hate these platforms, and yet still use them, because good alternatives are thin on the ground right now.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I just don't see how that's that much different from what 5e already has, but okay.

5e rolled it all up into Advantage/Disadvantage. IMO they went way too far - but that's what is different.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Small and meaningful. I mean what does that even mean?

Its a social encounter. You have a Bard focused on Social in the party, with you.

I gave my example for a Fighter ability upthread. Here is that post:

Spitballing a Fighter feature I would consider appropriate, with the caveat that this has not been tested, I cannot promise it would be balanced, I'm thinking of something like this:

Gritty Determination​

At 3rd level, your single-minded determination to see a task completed carries you to greater heights. You have a pool of Grit points, equal to your highest ability modifier (minimum 1) plus your Fighter level. Any time you make an ability check that isn't an Initiative check, before you roll, you may spend points from your Grit pool to increase the result on a one for one basis. You cannot add more than your proficiency bonus to any single roll. You can spend Grit points even when you have a feature, such as Expertise, which allows you to add twice your proficiency bonus. You regain any spent Grit points when you complete a long rest. At 7th level, you also regain any spent Grit points when you complete a short rest.​

Now, perhaps it should be limited to half your proficiency bonus, or have fewer points, or whatever else. As I said, it would need testing. But the core idea here is simple, and this is a straightforward, easy-to-use feature. You have to invest many levels into Fighter before you get the short-rest recharge, so there's little fear of a lame multiclass dip. It's generically useful; it applies in cases that nobody would get proficiency in, which gives it unique utility; it stacks with other buffs like Expertise, Bardic Inspiration, guidance, etc., so there's no worry about checking compatibility; and you spend the points before you roll, so there's no "oh, I rolled a 2, there's no point" issues that I know annoy some players.

I am confident some kind of ability like this, even if subject to some balance changes, would be perfectly functional on the Fighter. It would be unique, useful, distinctive, and fairly easy to use. And this ability, while quite useful, is certainly lower-power than being an actual spellcaster.

As I said there, this needs playtesting and other such things. But the overall shape is a good one IMO. Useful, distinctive, straightforward, versatile, and completely non-combat (if I've missed any combat-related ability checks, presume those would be excluded too). Something any Fighter could use, that would be noteworthy for being used, but wouldn't make them masters of social stuff. They'd have to invest much more of their character options to reach "mastery" of such things--and that's perfectly fine.

Does the Fighter/Barb, under pretty much any 'normal' use case have a meaningful contribution mechanically under any sane approach in 5e or the 2024 UA?

In 5.0? No, not really, which is exactly what my frustration is. 5.5 is at least trying to fix the problem. My above proposal, plus Tactical Mind if the link to Second Wind is removed, would be adequate for what I desire. It wouldn't be much--the ragged edge of acceptable--but we're talking compromises here. Ragged-edge-of-acceptable is precisely where compromise is most likely to be found.

5e rolled it all up into Advantage/Disadvantage. IMO they went way too far - but that's what is different.

I mean, I predicted this several months before official launch. Advantage isn't a bad idea in principle. After all, it was originally used as, effectively, a damage boost feature via super high accuracy for 4e Avengers! But I specifically predicted exactly this phenomenon back in March 2014, and I'd had concerns about it long before that (going back to at least 2012), and that's exactly what came to pass. Advantage is the weapon of last resort...and also the weapon of first resort. Yes, modifiers could get out of hand in 4e. We've gone to the reverse end, where there's no need to bother with cleverness or engagement or resourceful thinking. Just find a way to push the Advantage button 24/7 and you're good forever.

 

[Oofta]

"Ability score and proficiency" was meant to cover that. I should have said modifier, however.


I just don't see how that's that much different from what 5e already has, but okay.


Have you ever played (or eaten, or read, or whatever) something because you believed you liked it, and then played(/eaten/read/etc.) something else, which blew your mind as to how much better it was in ways you couldn't even have conceived before doing so?

Have you ever played/etc. something because it was tolerable and readily available, even if it wasn't really something you liked?

Have you ever played/etc. something because you could make a whole bunch of changes to it that made it suit you better, even though those changes might go far afield from the original thing, and possibly be much more effort/expense/etc. than the unmodified thing?

Have you ever played/etc. something that was genuinely not to your taste, but everything else was even less your speed, so you picked the thing that fit best while hoping for something better?

Most of these questions are rhetorical, because I know your answer for most of them is "yes," given your advocacy of Level Up. But the point stands. Something can be widely-used, "popular" even, and yet still be not very good at all.

Consider Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter (which I refuse to call by its stupid new name.) Many folks openly hate these platforms, and yet still use them, because good alternatives are thin on the ground right now.

So, you don't like it, so it's no good? People just don't know any better?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So, you don't like it, so it's no good? People just don't know any better?

Is that what I said? Or is that your sarcastic, unhelpful reinterpretation of what I said?

I asked the questions I asked because I know that Mr. Sweet is unhappy with the options and mechanical diversity present in first-party 5e content. And because I know these feelings personally (specifically, they applied to 3e) and have worked with others who felt the same way about other things (not TTRPG-related, but still game-related.)

Something being widely used does not necessarily have any relationship to it being well-liked, well-made, or well-suited. One must give more than just "this is used by a lot of people." Otherwise, we fall into the same trap Blizzard did with the design of several of their past expansions; they used player engagement (recorded data showing players doing various bits of content) as though it were players actually liking that content. This is a well-known fallacious reasoning method, called "surrogation": substituting the measure of a desirable good for the good itself, as though driving up the measure is identical to increasing that good.

Further, something can be widely-used because one specific aspect of it is well-liked, while other aspects are neutral or even disliked, because many things, including TTRPG classes, are bundles, not homogeneous, isotropic blocks. My claim has always been that Fighter is widely-used because it is conceptually well-liked, regardless of how well or poorly its mechanics perform. People will tolerate many, many kinds of Fighter. That doesn't mean there can't be any improvement.