D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Micah Sweet]

"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.

And if someone other than WotC makes a better fighter (and they have), I would agree with you. But WotC making a better version of something they already made and a lot of people use is just less motivation for them to make changes.

 

[Scribe]

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

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.

I have no problem with that.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Again, the low AC characters still get attacked. They still get hit. The reason is... (wait for it)

Because the situation is dynamic. The goblins that were hiding in the wagon that the wizard was checking out jumped out. Same with the exploration pillar, because I assume not everyone just stands there in the field while the wizard looks at the wagon's wheels. The fighter might be looking for tracks. The ranger might be in the grass staring out into the field. The bard might be pissing behind the tree. Whatever they do, they do it at the same time unless they say they don't. Then the DM might have some roll, and some might not. The fighter might make a nature or investigation check. The ranger might make a perception. The bard no check. The wizard might just interact with the scene. Hence, a dynamic scene. Not a static scene.

The same is true for the social pillar. They all interact (hopefully), and then the DM determines who, if anyone, needs to roll.

This, and there are half a dozen social skills. And people keep trying to focus on no-proficiency 10 Cha characters trying to use persuasion when…that’s just a bad player choice, not a system issue. The 14 Cha Proficient character is gonna contribute just fine.

The stance is that someone with a 14 charisma (easily doable for a fighter if the player cares) and proficiency will never want to participate in a social encounter because the DM might call for a check. Seems like there's always a charisma based class in the group at the very least if not a bard specialized in the appropriate skill. Other, non-charisma-based checks never affect the target DC, nor does the content of what the PC says, as far as I can tell.

Throw in house rules like mentioned up thread somewhere that a failed persuasion check automatically makes the NPC hostile and I can see why people wouldn't participate. I think all of this adds up to poor DMing that doesn't align with the advice in the DMG* so of course only the people with the best chance to succeed speak up.

*STANDARD DISCLAIMER: the DMG should be improved. Maybe if it was people would actually read it.

This

Because the extra skill proficiency the Battlemaster, Cavalier, and Samurai is equal to the same thing anyone gets with background.

Wait are you saying extra proficiencies don’t count because backgrounds give proficiencies?

Or, I don't know, play a fighter and take a level or two of bard. You gain the specialization without sacrificing much fighting ability.

Or Rogue. Adding rogue to any Dex fighter build is very good.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This, and there are half a dozen social skills. And people keep trying to focus on no-proficiency 10 Cha characters trying to use persuasion when…that’s just a bad player choice, not a system issue. The 14 Cha Proficient character is gonna contribute just fine.


This

Wait are you saying extra proficiencies don’t count because backgrounds give proficiencies?

Battlemasters do not get extra skill proficiencies. Minigiant spoke in error. They meant an additional artisan tool proficiency. You can probably guess what I think of this so-called "utility" benefit.

As for the actual contribution BM makes, namely the Commanding Presence and Tactical Assessment maneuvers, subclass is separate from class. If subclasses elect to offer such choices, that's cool (though I wish it were better*). They can do so or not do so; they aren't meant to provide the core functionality of a character. The class itself, however, needs to give at least a thin veneer of distinctive support to all pillars of the game. Otherwise, the pillars aren't pillars, or the class is poorly designed for the explicit, stated intent of the game.

I have, twice now, given an example of what I consider such a thin veneer. A properly-playtested idea in the general shape of my Gritty Determination proposal, and decoupling Tactical Mind from Second Wind. If you coupled those changes with small improvements to the Battle Master's skill maneuvers (and, ideally, adding more such maneuvers, e.g. relating to Survival, Perception, and (say) Medicine--call it "Survival Training" or something), then I could accept it as being adequate.

*In brief: Having tools to do cool social things is great. It sucks balls that you can only do so by giving up the stuff you need in order to keep up with other classes in terms of combat contribution. If Commanding Presence and Tactical Assessment had a "this die is not consumed if the roll still fails" clause, I'd consider them in the ragged-edge-of-acceptable range.

This is part of why it's so frustrating to discuss these things. You ask for an inch and people act like you're demanding a mile. They catastrophize. They turn any criticism at all into the most heinous thing ever, and anyone speaking that criticism is instantly and irrevocably impossible to please, someone who will take and take and take and take until Kingdom come. The changes do not need to be dramatic! And they can be quite simple to use in actual play!

Or Rogue. Adding rogue to any Dex fighter build is very good.

Though of course one must then wonder why you don't just play Rogue. Which, believe it or not, is actually pretty close to acceptable for me! There are a few tweaks I'd still want to make, but overall, Rogue isn't bad in 5e. It's not what I would consider good either, but it's not bad. (Its subclasses, on the other hand....)

 

[Aldarc]

At the rate that caster restrictions and limitations are being removed, here are some predictions for a few editions outwards:

• Casters don't lose their spell slots when they cast a spell that fails because losing spell slots makes them feel sad.
• Wizards are bumped to a d8 HD because they were still feeling too squishy.
• Wizards have access to ALL spells because they should be the spell master.

What are your predictions?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

At the rate that caster restrictions and limitations are being removed, here are some predictions for a few editions outwards:

• Casters don't lose their spell slots when they cast a spell that fails because losing spell slots makes them feel sad.
• Wizards are bumped to a d8 HD because they were still feeling too squishy.
• Wizards have access to ALL spells because they should be the spell master.

What are your predictions?

Concentration will be changed from only one at a time, to allowing multiple based on your school specialty (for Wizards only, naturally), to being equal to Constitution modifier for all Wizards (and potentially all casters in general.)

Arcane Recovery (and Natural Recovery, since they're the same) will regain 1 charge per short rest, after any expenditure during said short rest.

Creatures will no longer get to re-roll saving throws against effects every turn. Instead, they'll only get a new chance if they deal damage to the spellcaster who inflicted the effect.

Cantrips will add ability modifier natively. The Agonizing Blast invocation will be dummied out.

Wizards will get the metamagic mechanic from Sorcerers (possibly as just a subclass.)

 

[Neonchameleon]

Cantrips will add ability modifier natively. The Agonizing Blast invocation will be dummied out.

4e? Is that you?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The Paladin would just give you too much offense, via Extra Attack and Smite.

That is precisely the amount of offense the warlord should have. They’re still a warrior class. The back-line tactician is not the primary concept.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Battlemasters do not get extra skill proficiencies. Minigiant spoke in error. They meant an additional artisan tool proficiency. You can probably guess what I think of this so-called "utility" benefit.

I assume they were thinking of the playtest BM, which does get a skill, but it’s not like BM was the only subclass mentioned in the post I replied to.

As for the actual contribution BM makes, namely the Commanding Presence and Tactical Assessment maneuvers, subclass is separate from class. If subclasses elect to offer such choices, that's cool (though I wish it were better*). They can do so or not do so; they aren't meant to provide the core functionality of a character.

I am the white guy blinking meme.

Subclass is part of class, not fracking separate from it. In 5e, some classes put large parts of what makes the class work into the subclasses. The sorcerer is practically inert sans subclass. Fighter subclasses are the bulk of a fighter’s mechanical representation of thier concept of what sort of warrior they are.

The class itself, however, needs to give at least a thin veneer of distinctive support to all pillars of the game. Otherwise, the pillars aren't pillars, or the class is poorly designed for the explicit, stated intent of the game.

Meh. You already know how I feel about this supposed requirement in the base class in order for the class to attain “good design”.

I have, twice now, given an example of what I consider such a thin veneer. A properly-playtested idea in the general shape of my Gritty Determination proposal, and decoupling Tactical Mind from Second Wind. If you coupled those changes with small improvements to the Battle Master's skill maneuvers (and, ideally, adding more such maneuvers, e.g. relating to Survival, Perception, and (say) Medicine--call it "Survival Training" or something), then I could accept it as being adequate.

Okay. I guess we will still be having this argument in 2025.

*In brief: Having tools to do cool social things is great. It sucks balls that you can only do so by giving up the stuff you need in order to keep up with other classes in terms of combat contribution. If Commanding Presence and Tactical Assessment had a "this die is not consumed if the roll still fails" clause, I'd consider them in the ragged-edge-of-acceptable range.

This is part of why it's so frustrating to discuss these things. You ask for an inch and people act like you're demanding a mile. They catastrophize. They turn any criticism at all into the most heinous thing ever, and anyone speaking that criticism is instantly and irrevocably impossible to please, someone who will take and take and take and take until Kingdom come. The changes do not need to be dramatic! And they can be quite simple to use in actual play!

Like when I suggested a set of abilities that aren’t spells, like explicitly aren’t magical effects, but use a Spellcasting classes native spell slots to fuel them, and you specifically act like I’m taking a flamethrower to the whole concept of a spellless ranger?

Though of course one must then wonder why you don't just play Rogue. Which, believe it or not, is actually pretty close to acceptable for me! There are a few tweaks I'd still want to make, but overall, Rogue isn't bad in 5e. It's not what I would consider good either, but it's not bad. (Its subclasses, on the other hand....)

Nah. One need not wonder any such thing, any more than taking a couple levels of any other class.

 

[Minigiant]

Wait are you saying extra proficiencies don’t count because backgrounds give proficiencies?

Because everyone gets skill proficiencies.
Everyone gets backgrounds
Everyone gets class skills.

A Fighter's History or Deception is the same proficiency as a Wizard's History or a Sorcerer's Deception but lower modifier.
A Fighter's History or Deception might be less proficiency a Rogue's History or a Bard's Deception.

1. There aren't enough skills for this system. Only 18.
2. Skills aren't anyway evenly distributed among Ability scores. Skills are tied to score by default. Strength has one skill that is purely Exploration. Constitution has no skills.
3. PCs get too many skills for the low amount of skills. Overlap is too easy.
4. 5e hands out skills like candy.

Only a "Gentlemen's Agreement" keeps the party having a broad skill array. This makes nonstereotypical or nontraditional PCs weaker or redundant.

5e was designed, accidentally or purposely, to support and incentivize traditional stereotypical PCs with skill choice (and almost every other choice).

1. Acolyte Cleric
2. Criminal Rogue
3. Soldier Fighter
4. Sage Wizard

etc etc