D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Oofta]

Yes, and? A party of casters would still be effective. This is where the analogy fails you.

Cool. They have in mine.

Again, it's impossible to discuss fixing the problem when you have to constantly discuss whether the problem even exists.

And I've repeatedly acknowledged that it does exist. For you. It doesn't exist for me and never has, what am I supposed to do about that? Lie?

In any case, if you have nothing new have a good one.

 

[Minigiant]

Some of the Crab Bucket Fallacy is due to the growth of D&D.

The 5E fighter and 5e wizard were designed with a traditionalist viewpoint and this caused the low margins of the fighter and the high margin of the wizard.

However now the majority of 5e is played, as Per WOTC, by younger people who are most likely to not have traditionalist viewpoint.

Hence the fighter being popular picks but have low satisfaction.

Again D&D is now big and has a variation of play.

And I 100% fault WOTC of trying to "One size fits All" for classes and no new classes that would match the increasing audience. But we will have 30 new races and classes because it's easy money makers for books.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Part of the problem is that many who have not personally experienced the caster gap simply cannot accept that it can still exist for others and that others’ experiences with the gap are valid. They seemingly honestly believe that their experiences are all that matter and represent the sum total of all possible experiences. It’s not a problem for them, therefore it cannot possibly be a problem for anyone else ever.

For others, myself included, the caster gap is such an obvious and constant problem that it might as well be a massive blinking neon sign you can see from space.

Or they experience the gap from the other side and think that's kind of awesome.

Which is fairly typical whenever there's inequality in anything: those who are on the winning end of inequality tend to see the other side being improved as themselves 'losing' even if their actual situation remains the same.

 

[Clint_L]

Reject all you want.

WOTC stated that the Fighter is most popular (IE most player) but lacks high satisfaction (many fans don't actually like the class).

None of this is my desired. I am repeating WOTC's own data.

WOTC says people play fighter the most but a large chunk of them dislike playing the class.

No. Your claim was "The type of fighter the majority of the 5e community wants doesn't exist in 5E. It will require an additional 1 to 4 new classes."

You have provided ZERO evidence in support of your assertion, and your interpretation of the limited data that you have focused on is nonsensical. There is NO data from WotC showing that "The type of fighter the majority of the 5e community wants doesn't exist in 5E," let alone the bit about additional classes. I don't even think that is a meaningful statement - your terms are completely undefined. What is the "5e community" and how are you measuring "the type of fighter" they want? You keep pulling out random numbers from various tests, none of which suggest anything like what you are asserting, and then make blanket statements.

You are simply asserting your beliefs as facts about the world, and cherry picking whatever evidence suits you to be reinterpreted as support for your beliefs.

If you want to argue about your opinions, argue about your opinions. Stop presenting them as made up "facts." Make a compelling case.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sigh

Remember how some people said the fighter class is a 5 in combat a 1 in exploration and a 1 in social?

Now if the Fighter is just 10% the base to be 5 Combat. The Barbarian/Paladin/Ranger is a 4 and the Rogue is a 3.

Let's say you want to make a warlord that is a 3/1/3? A 3 is 4% drop.

So either don’t drop combat, or base it on a different class. 3/1/3 is within the scale of the classes in the PHB. It’s fine. It does not matter if it’s “better” (for some tables” than the PHB fighter.

What if you want to remake the 3e Duskblade, 4e Warden, or a full class Rune Knight or something new like a Marksman class....

In order, paladin, paladin, Barbarian or Monk, perfectly doable with the fighter chassis as is.

2% Damage and +3 damage from subclass to work with.​

That’s a reductive way to look at it, that doesn’t reflect how subclasses and classes are designed in 5e. Combat balance is based on spells, using the DMG spell damage by level chart, more or less.

You are almost guaranteed to power creep the fighter and it's 3 core subclasses with a new warrior class or make something as bad as the 2014 Beastmaster or Element Monk.trying to avoid this.

If the fighter is underpowered out of combat, this is irrelevant. You don’t design toward underpowered examples, you just within the PHB power scale of all classes. Why on earth would you give a damn if it’s better than a class you consider underpowered?

That's the crab bucket. There's no design space between the fighter and any other class until level 11 when it gets a third attack.

No, that’s your hang up.

Like, did you notice that they didn’t take anything away from the fighter, while giving it more second wind and more to use it on, as well as other new features?

Like taking the archer/sharpshooter class idea. I would never base it on the 2014 fighter unless I was going to just literally make it a variant fighter to leverage those class features. I do think a variant fighter wouldn't need much adjustment, though, especially from the 2024 fighter if it's pretty close to playtest 7.

IF I want an archer from the ground up, I'm looking at the Monk, Rogue, and Ranger, for inspiration, and probably using the Monk as the chassis.

I always combine ki and the martial arts die when I use the monk as a chassis for a new class, so the Archer would have Focus Dice, and would have a dynamic of at-will features that can be pushed harder using focus dice.

Perfect Aim: add an amount equal to their focus die plus their wisdom to the damage of a ranged weapon attack as a bonus action, at-will. Spend a focus die to increase that damage, either an additional die or some other boost.

Nimble Shooter: use some of their movement any time they use a reaction, spend a die to gain extra movement of some kind

etc add in the ability to shoot projectiles out of the air, spend a bonus action and a die to gain advantage on ranged weapon attacks within normal range and ignore long range, whatever else, regain a focus die when you crit maybe x/long rest

evasion and uncanny dodge, bard level expertise or at least more skills than the monk gets.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

There's no reason a fighter has to be better out of combat than every other class,

This particular discussion is about bringing lacking classes up to parity, not to make them superior to all others.
It might be worth reading the example in the original post again.

Unfortunately, as to point 4, when given a choice between a combat feat and a non-combat feat (or utility power), often the players would choose a combat one. Why? Because you don't know for sure when the non-combat option would be useful. A large bonus to, say, negotiating with NPC's might go fallow in an undead-infested tomb. An extra +1 to defenses, however, you know there's going to be combat. The fail state for a skill challenge was rarely death (I can think of only one "death" challenge I ever faced, in Scales of War), but that was often the fail state for combat- so you optimize to survive combat, at least, that's how the thought process seemed to go at the tables I played at.

Indeed. Feats are regarded as too rare and irrevocable in most cases. However other resources that allow you a range of choice in both what you can do, and how you use it allow much more experimentation into more niche and out of combat options.
Both spell slots and BM maneuvers (when the character has a certain amount) are often spent on out-of-combat capabilities once the character has enough abilities to keep themselves and their companions alive in the usual life-or-death situation that they commonly face.

Not w
Not wanting to play an anime fighter in D&D because it doesn't fit the game is bad because...why?

I think he issue was that while for some people the Warblade abilities were too farfetched, more just didn't get the distinction between the Warblade and the actual anime, magical TOB class, the Swordsage. Thus the TOB was labelled as "making warriors anime/magical etc" without understanding that there was a non-anime option.

The other classes doesn't exist in the real world officially..

That's the whole point of this thread.

The type of fighter the majority of the 5e community wants doesn't exist in 5E. It will require an additional 1 to 4 new classes.

But WOTC will not add new warrior classes. And most DMs are wary of 3PP classes that lack massive playtesting or online discussion.

I'm pretty sure the whole point of the thread was that comparison within a limited group, or using only limited examples is flawed if the wider picture is needed to give context. There was even another example based on the Vampiric touch spell supplied.
Unfortunately the initial illustration was a bit of a red flag and the point was obscured in the rush to attack or nitpick the example given.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

While this is hardly the first time that a group that is asking for equality has been mischaracterised as demanding privilege, it is disheartening to see it done by someone in this venue.

Mod Note:

That’s very highly charged rhetoric you’re using here. The inherent political baggage it carries is out of place in this discussion and generally not permitted here. Don’t do that again.

 

[SteveC]

I actually suspect that the reason they haven't made a warlord is because they've decided to spread the warlord kit around the other classes. There're plenty of warlord pieces found in various subclasses like the totem barbarian's wolf totem, the order cleric, the mastermind, and battlemaster, the banneret, and probably a few others that i haven't thought of. Why have a single class when you can spread those "leader of men" abilities around those classes that already exist.

I see where you're coming from, but that makes the Warlord seem like the Rod of Seven Parts: it will have some world shaking power if put together. It's really odd to not be able to actually play a character you want. Now in 2023 it's not the same thing, but when 5E launched, the Warlord very much was a thing and was popular. I think there was really someone who just hated the class and it has never been revisited (that's my conspiracy theory idea).

 

[Minigiant]

No. Your claim was "The type of fighter the majority of the 5e community wants doesn't exist in 5E. It will require an additional 1 to 4 new classes."

Yes.
But that's on me for assuming the proof was obvious.

I'm going to list 6 types of warrior classes

1. The simplistic 2014 5e fighter
2. A even more simplistic Fighter with clear exploration features like the 2012 DNDN Playtest
3. A complex Fighter than had Maneuvers in the core class like the "3rd" 2012 DNDN Playtest
4. A fighter that has Imp Crit or Maneuvers and a Social or Exploration role attached to each subclass like the late 2013 DNDN Playtest
5. The A5E fighter
6. The A5e marshal

My claim is that if you polled these 6 fighters amongst the 5e community today, one of them would reach majority,

What is my proof?

WOTC is adding elements of 2-6 to the 2024 version of 5th edition Fighter.​

How is that proof? The 2014 Fighter is so simple that any major addition to it is a rejection of the original. WOTC is QUICK to remove any playtest material that isn't popular and now fast to revert to the 2014 version if able. But they are still adding.

Adding cheese to a hamburger makes it a cheeseburger. If you add cheese, lettuce, and tomato to a plain hamburger, you didn't want a plain hamburger.

 

[Minigiant]

I've explained this many times in this thread.

So either don’t drop combat, or base it on a different class. 3/1/3 is within the scale of the classes in the PHB. It’s fine. It does not matter if it’s “better” (for some tables” than the PHB fighter.

That's the point of the thread.

Arnold won't allow a new warrior class that is better than the 2014 fighter in the exploration or social pillar or another aspect of combat.
Bob cannot easily make a new warrior class that isn't better than the fighter in the exploration or social pillar or another aspect of combat that doesn't suck because there isn't enough design space. So Bob's warlord will outshine the 2014 fighter

If the fighter is underpowered out of combat, this is irrelevant. You don’t design toward underpowered examples, you just within the PHB power scale of all classes. Why on earth would you give a damn if it’s better than a class you consider underpowered?

The DM won't allow it as per the OP.

I'm pretty sure the whole point of the thread was that comparison within a limited group, or using only limited examples is flawed if the wider picture is needed to give context. There was even another example based on the Vampiric touch spell supplied.
Unfortunately the initial illustration was a bit of a red flag and the point was obscured in the rush to attack or nitpick the example given.

And that point is predicated on the difficulty of designing in the local optimum because the community won't allow adjustment of the global optimum.

If the local was not so restrictive, there would be no fallacious argument at all.