D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Oofta]

"Different and special that other classes can't do" is not the same as "better than every other class" out of combat. For example giving the Fighter the ability to train a rabble of commoners into an effective fighting force during a short period of downtime is not something any other class can do. It is different and special. However it does not make the fighter better than every other class out of combat.
Neither "different", not "special" are words that directly equate to "powerful".

Claiming that people who want the fighter to have more options for non-combat situations than they do currently, are demanding that they be made better than every other class is not a logical conclusion.
Why did you make it?

Fighters do not need abilities or options other classes do not have in order to contribute outside of combat. The fact that other classes can also use the same techniques in no way affects the use of those same techniques by a fighter.

They don't need anything outside of combat that makes them uniquely capable in order to contribute. All PCs can contribute, regardless of class, outside of combat even if they are not the best theoretically possible.

 

[SteveC]

Fighters do not need abilities or options other classes do not have in order to contribute outside of combat. The fact that other classes can also use the same techniques in no way affects the use of those same techniques by a fighter.

They don't need anything outside of combat that makes them uniquely capable in order to contribute. All PCs can contribute, regardless of class, outside of combat even if they are not the best theoretically possible.

This is one of the things that I genuinely don't understand. Other classes have mechanical class options for the social and exploration pillars. They are built into the class. The Fighter has none of those options now. It seems as if you don't care about balance in terms of what a character can do in a session, which I can see. A Fighter can take a skill to contribute to exploration (and even that is an optional rule, remember), but they will never be as good as other classes who do. From the last campaign I played in, they will never really be anything other than mediocre at those things. Why should that be the case?

And that's when I genuinely don't get why creating a new class that could do things in those pillars would somehow be bad. If we don't care about balance, why is a new class that can do more than the Fighter a bad thing? Or is it that the Fighter has some unique quality that means they can control other martial classes and what they can do? Let's say we did a Ranger that removed spellcasting and would be just martial. Would they now have to lose exploration abilities? I'm genuinely not seeing how this makes sense and I'd like to.

I'd really like to understand this, since it sounds lot like what WotC's designers are saying, and, if I'm being honest, that's poor design to me. So I'd really like to get it since I can understand the design choices of really just about every other game I've picked up over the decades. This isn't intended to be an attack post, rather a "I just don't get the perspective." And I'd like to.

 

[Clint_L]

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.

That is not proof. That is not even anything like proof. I don't think you understand what proof is. What you have is an untested hypothesis. And probably an untestable hypothesis, given the vagueness of your terms.

Stop making claims about what other people want - it is not helping your case. Just argue about what you, personally, want. Make a good argument instead of undermining yourself with these absurd claims about "the 5e community" and "proof."

Here is my opinion: fighters are currently a strong, well-balanced class that can be basic or quite distinct, depending on the choice of subclass and the choice of feats, which they have far more access to than other classes, making them relatively customizable. I do think they could use a bit more of a unique niche in the 2024 PHB, especially given that weapon mastery is fast becoming ubiquitous. WotC has floated "tactical mind" as one way of achieving this; I think it is an interesting idea, though I would tweak it.

I think singling out fighters and wizards for comparison, as the debate always seems to do, is not really productive, nor is focusing on very high level play, which for 99% of games is aspirational. Both classes are strong; fighters are generally simpler with higher on-demand damage and survivability, and wizards more complex and flexible. Evidently, both are popular choices in all the data we are given, fighters in particular, so there is not a crisis around either class.

I also think fighters compare favourably to other melee-oriented classes, with the exception of paladins. I think paladins are slightly OP.

 

[Minigiant]

Fighters do not need abilities or options other classes do not have in order to contribute outside of combat. The fact that other classes can also use the same techniques in no way affects the use of those same techniques by a fighter.

They don't need anything outside of combat that makes them uniquely capable in order to contribute. All PCs can contribute, regardless of class, outside of combat even if they are not the best theoretically possible.

If the party has to convince a guard to give them information and the bard has a +10 Persuasion and the fighter has a +3 Intimidation, they party will likely choose for have the bard rolls.

There are no official rules that incentivise the Intimidating over Persuasion.
There are no official guidance that incentivise the Intimidating over Persuasion.
Using multiple roles a complex skill system or skill challenges is not a coral of 5th edition either.

This is because 5th edition was written in a very simplistic manner with little margin of design choice and little respect to the idea that the DM might not have the answer or ability to balance it according to the makeup of the party.

Now if you're saying that every party member should allow the fighter player to choose their skills first and then ban any other player from using those skills or picking those skills as proficiencies so that the fighter player will always be the choice for using those positions.... well that's not in the game add rules guidelines nor advice

Now you can say it's not nice to pick the same skills as the fighter and then be stronger than them in the chosen area that they picked but 5E doesn't have a expensive skill system in the first place so there really isn't that many choices to pick in the first place. And once you pick your two skills from class and two skills from background chances are there going to be a ton of overlap which is kind of the whole problem.

There are only 18 skills in 5E and every class has a minimum of four proficiency slots. And a couple's classes have get more than 2 skills. And racist gift skills. And some classes get skills.
So it's very very very easy for a fighter to be in an overlap but one of their party members if the group is four people or more. And Kord help you if you got five or more PCs in a group.

A dwarf fighter could easily be outmatched in Intimidation or History in the classic group with a human cleric, a halfling road, and an elf wizard. Add the tiefling warlock, half orc barbarian, half elf bard, or the dragonborn paladin and it gets really rough..

Wizards of the Coast made 5e a little bit too simplistic and too small to match the style of game they actually want to represent as core. They created the rim of the crab bucket.

I think the playtest in 2013 Focused too hard on a very combat heavy module and didn't really get the non-comment mechanics right because they weren't tested enough.

 

[Oofta]

If the party has to convince a guard to give them information and the bard has a +10 Persuasion and the fighter has a +3 Intimidation, they party will likely choose for have the bard rolls.

There are no official rules that incentivise the Intimidating over Persuasion.
There are no official guidance that incentivise the Intimidating over Persuasion.
Using multiple roles a complex skill system or skill challenges is not a coral of 5th edition either.

This is because 5th edition was written in a very simplistic manner with little margin of design choice and little respect to the idea that the DM might not have the answer or ability to balance it according to the makeup of the party.

Now if you're saying that every party member should allow the fighter player to choose their skills first and then ban any other player from using those skills or picking those skills as proficiencies so that the fighter player will always be the choice for using those positions.... well that's not in the game add rules guidelines nor advice

Now you can say it's not nice to pick the same skills as the fighter and then be stronger than them in the chosen area that they picked but 5E doesn't have a expensive skill system in the first place so there really isn't that many choices to pick in the first place. And once you pick your two skills from class and two skills from background chances are there going to be a ton of overlap which is kind of the whole problem.

There are only 18 skills in 5E and every class has a minimum of four proficiency slots. And a couple's classes have get more than 2 skills. And racist gift skills. And some classes get skills.
So it's very very very easy for a fighter to be in an overlap but one of their party members if the group is four people or more. And Kord help you if you got five or more PCs in a group.

A dwarf fighter could easily be outmatched in Intimidation or History in the classic group with a human cleric, a halfling road, and an elf wizard. Add the tiefling warlock, half orc barbarian, half elf bard, or the dragonborn paladin and it gets really rough..

Wizards of the Coast made 5e a little bit too simplistic and too small to match the style of game they actually want to represent as core. They created the rim of the crab bucket.

I think the playtest in 2013 Focused too hard on a very combat heavy module and didn't really get the non-comment mechanics right because they weren't tested enough.

If the group is trying to get out of a burning building because the wizard cast fireball in the living room and the door is stuck, that fighter with their +10 athletics is going to look pretty good compared to that bard with a +3 athletics. No one is saying that a fighter will be absolutely the best at any given skill. That doesn't mean they can't still contribute. Can they compete with a class that sacrifices combat ability, who's primary role in the game is to be the party face, in a persuasion check? When that fighter has a 10 charisma? No. That would be silly. Just like asking that bard with an 8 strength to open the stuck door with an athletics check.

It's like saying that Clydesdales are worthless because they can't win the Kentucky Derby. Meanwhile if I needed a field plowed I know which one I would pick.

 

[Minigiant]

That is not proof. That is not even anything like proof. I don't think you understand what proof is. What you have is an untested hypothesis. And probably an untestable hypothesis, given the vagueness of your terms

That is proof

✂️ second

29 seconds · Clipped by shocknix · Original video "D&D Playtest 7 | Deep Dive | Unearthed Arcana" by Dungeons & Dragons

youtube.com

There is Jeremy Crawford stating that they want to give fighters a ability to do something in a session without combat.

Stop making claims about what other people want - it is not helping your case. Just argue about what you, personally, want. Make a good argument instead of undermining yourself with these absurd claims about "the 5e community" and "proof."

Here is my opinion: fighters are currently a strong, well-balanced class that can be basic or quite distinct, depending on the choice of subclass and the choice of feats, which they have far more access to than other classes, making them relatively customizable. I do think they could use a bit more of a unique niche in the 2024 PHB, especially given that weapon mastery is fast becoming ubiquitous. WotC has floated "tactical mind" as one way of achieving this; I think it is an interesting idea, though I would tweak it.

I think you are hung up on tone.

When I say that people want a different fighter it means that they want the same fighter with some improvements. Whoever there is a vocal community that pretty much says the fighter is popular so it It's perfect and it needs no improvements.

That's the core of the crab bucket fallacy.

The idea that the fighter is so beloved that is perfect therefore nothing can be added to the game that is anyway better than it because the fighter is already extremely balanced and perfect due to its popularity.

The fighter is not perfect in the eyes of most of the community.. The half work is not perfect in the eyes of most of the community. Vampiric Touch is not perfect in the eyes are mostly community. Therefore these ideas and concepts could be improved and new aspects in the same realm can bypass them in one element with a downgrade another element if the improvement is realized.

The entire idea hinges on the premise that the fighter is perfect because it is most popular.

 

[Minigiant]

If the group is trying to get out of a burning building because the wizard cast fireball in the living room and the door is stuck, that fighter with their +10 athletics is going to look pretty good compared to that bard with a +3 athletics. No one is saying that a fighter will be absolutely the best at any given skill. That doesn't mean they can't still contribute. Can they compete with a class that sacrifices combat ability, who's primary role in the game is to be the party face, in a persuasion check? When that fighter has a 10 charisma? No. That would be silly. Just like asking that bard with an 8 strength to open the stuck door with an athletics check.

It's like saying that Clydesdales are worthless because they can't win the Kentucky Derby. Meanwhile if I needed a field plowed I know which one I would pick.

The level when a fighter has a 10 bonus to athletics, an arcane caster has spells of low levels that he can break door AND spell slots to spare. That's level 13. Plus five strength and plus five proficiency

You can say that the wizard should not prepare these spells but there's nothing banning them from doing so.

You can say that the Wizard has the cost of preparing those spells and have those slots but at those levels the wizard has enough slots and preparations to do so easily.

Wizards of the Coast gives wizards too many slides too many preparations. And their treasure gives them too many scroll as treasure in the default rules and in adventures.

Wizards of the Coast screwed up on 2014.

 

[Oofta]

The level when a fighter has a 10 bonus to athletics, an arcane caster has spells of low levels that he can break door AND spell slots to spare. That's level 13. Plus five strength and plus five proficiency

You can say that the wizard should not prepare these spells but there's nothing banning them from doing so.

You can say that the Wizard has the cost of preparing those spells and have those slots but at those levels the wizard has enough slots and preparations to do so easily.

Wizards of the Coast gives wizards too many slides too many preparations. And their treasure gives them too many scroll as treasure in the default rules and in adventures.

Wizards of the Coast screwed up on 2014.

Okeley dokely. We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

I don't see any issues and never have, obviously either every caster I've ever played with is incompetent, the DM running the game is doing something different or I just don't expect a 1st level fighter with a 10 charisma to compete with a bard with expertise and an 18 charisma. Meanwhile people playing fighters have always contributed in my games both in and out of combat. Have a good one.

 

[Minigiant]

Okeley dokely. We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

I don't see any issues and never have, obviously either every caster I've ever played with is incompetent, the DM running the game is doing something different or I just don't expect a 1st level fighter with a 10 charisma to compete with a bard with expertise and an 18 charisma. Meanwhile people playing fighters have always contributed in my games both in and out of combat. Have a good one.

That is not what I'm saying.

I said that a soldier champion fighter (the recommended quick build) with profieceny in Acrobatics, Athletics, Intimidation, and Perception will likely to not have the highest modifier in most of those skills in a D&D party of 4 or more until the teen levels. And at the teens, casters will have magic that does it better or magic to buff their skills. And the bard and rogue might have any extra set of Expertise.

The entire out of combat ability being Str (Althletics) is a weakpoint because WOTC made

1. The bonuses too low
2. The uses unclear and limited
3. The magic too plentiful
4. a suggestion that it Dex (Acrobatics) can do most of what Str (Althletics)

Which leaves little leeway if you you fighter as the baseline. Hence crab bucket

 

[Oofta]

That is not what I'm saying.

I said that a soldier champion fighter (the recommended quick build) with profieceny in Acrobatics, Athletics, Intimidation, and Perception will likely to not have the highest modifier in most of those skills in a D&D party of 4 or more until the teen levels. And at the teens, casters will have magic that does it better or magic to buff their skills. And the bard and rogue might have any extra set of Expertise.

The entire out of combat ability being Str (Althletics) is a weakpoint because WOTC made

1. The bonuses too low
2. The uses unclear and limited
3. The magic too plentiful
4. a suggestion that it Dex (Acrobatics) can do most of what Str (Althletics)

Which leaves little leeway if you you fighter as the baseline. Hence crab bucket

We disagree on the results of the choices. I don't see any reason to continue rehashing the subject.