D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Isn’t a thing outside of your hyperbolic posts responding to things that no one said.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

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.

First, I appreciate how you word you response. I feel like you and I are alike in that we're here to learn from others. Others who may or may not share our approach to the game. I know ENWorld has improved my approach to DMing over the last 6ish years.

TBH, I typically don't agree with the poster you are responding much but... I think I have a bit of common ground with them on this topic so maybe this will be helpful for you in your desire to understand what is likely a similar perspective.

First, at our table, players are not limited in the types of actions that they can propose for their characters. If it makes sense in the fiction and if there is no uncertainty, the action just happens. A Fighter wants to parley with a lazy Guard even though they don't have the highest CHA(Persuasion) modifier in the party? Why not? This is a game of make believe and story telling, not just a game of beating random numbers. (Note, I'm not trying to belittle anyone here who leans heavily into the crunch. I'm just saying it's not the only factor some tables find important for fun at their table. Sometimes actions can just succeed and we move on to the next challenge. Indeed, this is the approach of the Middle Path as detailed in the DMG pg 236)

Now, let's say this guard is a real stickler for rules and won't just let anyone past... but our 3rd level Champion Fighter has the Noble background and so has proficiency in Persuasion. With their 10 Charisma, our Fighter has a +2 to Persuasion. Okay, that's not as good as the Bard's +6 or the Sorcerer's +4, but this guard happens to be a social climber (or perhaps honors the social pecking order or...). The DM awards the Fighter with the Noble background Advantage on the check to try to sweet talk his way past. So... I guess where I'm going with this point is that checks don't happen in a vacuum. The DM creates these scenarios and presumably gives the NPCs Bonds/Ideals/Flaws/Motives and players, via their PCs, can try to discover those characteristics before going in for their ask. Maybe instead of a social climber, this guard is greedy or gullible or susceptible to name-dropping or... something else. At the end of the day, the Bard, despite their +6, just may not be the obvious or only choice to try to Persuade the guard. It might just be anyone in the party who slips the guard a gold piece or mentions the name of the local pit fighting champ or whatever. The DM is a major factor here in how they set up such scenes. Math and probabilities need not be the end all and be all in this game we all love.

It's also worth noting that the d20 is a fickle beast. The Bard being 20% better than the Fighter at Persuasion doesn't really mean a heck of a lot when that roll might come up once or twice in a session. It's just not noticeable with such a small sample size. Sure, I'll admit, the Bard typically does have a slightly better chance at succeeding if both PCs are utilizing the same approach to achieve the same goal against an agnostic target over the course of a campaign, but does that mean the Fighter lacks any value in the social interaction pillar? It seems like some here are lamenting that. Our table just doesn't worry about it. Oh - I suppose it is also worth noting, for those unswayed by my desire to downplay the math: failure can be fun.

 

[Minigiant]

Isn’t a thing outside of your hyperbolic posts responding to things that no one said.

People have in this thread and many others that the fighter is so popular that no other version of it could be more popular.

That is this stating that the 5e fighter could not and therefore should be improved as the most popular fighter already exists and is therefore near perfection.

 

[Eubani]

And if the Bard had the Noble background? You cannot count on such things to always matter and hope something random will get the DM to grant advantage as it may not happen, may favour another character, etc. Often enough class abilities and spells can overcome such bonuses or just get advantage. The Fighter in most situations cannot make up the difference and at best hope for Advantage. Would be a surprise to learn that not just Fighters get Advantage when the situation fits, that on top of spells and class abilities these other classes can also be granted situational advantage if not just get it auto from an ability or spell. A shock I know.

What if a Fighter has a specific background......But what if the bard has it
What if the Fighter comes up with a good plan.... you guessed it, what if the Bard had good plan.
I can go on but just like the nonsense arguments that Fighters can have feats, skills and backgrounds, the idea that the potential of a bonus due to a beneficial situation means that Fighters doesn't need anything is ridiculous for the reasons that other classes can find themselves in a beneficial situation and that is ignoring the simple fact that such things cannot be depended upon.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

And if the Bard had the Noble background? You cannot count on such things to always matter and hope something random will get the DM to grant advantage as it may not happen, may favour another character, etc. Often enough class abilities and spells can overcome such bonuses or just get advantage. The Fighter in most situations cannot make up the difference and at best hope for Advantage. Would be a surprise to learn that not just Fighters get Advantage when the situation fits, that on top of spells and class abilities these other classes can also be granted situational advantage if not just get it auto from an ability or spell. A shock I know.

What if a Fighter has a specific background......But what if the bard has it
What if the Fighter comes up with a good plan.... you guessed it, what if the Bard had good plan.
I can go on but just like the nonsense arguments that Fighters can have feats, skills and backgrounds, the idea that the potential of a bonus due to a beneficial situation means that Fighters doesn't need anything is ridiculous for the reasons that other classes can find themselves in a beneficial situation and that is ignoring the simple fact that such things cannot be depended upon.

I'm sorry you missed the spirit of my post.
I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have that don't involve rhetoricals seeking to discredit how our table works.

 

[SteveC]

First, I appreciate how you word you response. I feel like you and I are alike in that we're here to learn from others. Others who may or may not share our approach to the game. I know ENWorld has improved my approach to DMing over the last 6ish years.

Hey thanks for this. I really am here to learn things and (gasp!) sometimes I'm wrong and have stuff to learn. There are a ton of people here who approach gaming from different perspectives than I do that I'd love to game with and have learned things from. I have been playing since the 70s, and there are people here who have been gaming longer than me.

In this case I was genuinely thinking "I don't get this." I like different perspectives even if I disagree with them. And from what you wrote later, I think we enjoy the same kinds of games that aren't D&D. Anyway, it was appreciated.

And what you wrote about the mechanics is completely right. From the recent game I played in, we had a kobold Rogue with us who was not social at all. There was this moment where we met a dragon (I know, spoiler: a dragon in Dragon Heist!). The kobold, who's life goal is to be a sort of Major Domo for a dragon, fell before the dragon and poured his life out about how his goal in this existence was to serve a dragon master. It was amazing. My bard (who had expertise in Deception and a +10 bonus with advantage coming on the roll) just tipped his hat to the kobold. It was the best possible resolution.

Now the Fighter just sat there the entire time, but the story was about how you didn't have to be the best to affect the Fiction, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

People have in this thread and many others that the fighter is so popular that no other version of it could be more popular.

I have not seen a single person say that no other version could be more popular. I think you’re misinterpreting what people have been telling you.

That is this stating that the 5e fighter could not and therefore should be improved as the most popular fighter already exists and is therefore near perfection.

Again, who is saying that?

 

[Eubani]

I'm sorry you missed the spirit of my post.
I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have that don't involve rhetoricals seeking to discredit how our table works.

I was not trying to discredit your table, I was pointing that such things could not be depended upon to fall in your favour. Would the Fighter have been as useful if the Bard was the Noble or the Guard hated Nobles no, the situation your table found itself was one of many possible variations of which the Fighter had zero control over.

 

[Minigiant]

I have not seen a single person say that no other version could be more popular. I think you’re misinterpreting what people have been telling you.

I have said repeated that another version of the fighter (one with some sort of additional combat system and an out of combat bonus) could be more popular han the current version. And that the current fighter could lack majority popularity.
More than one person have said I am wrong.

 

[tetrasodium]

And if the Bard had the Noble background? You cannot count on such things to always matter and hope something random will get the DM to grant advantage as it may not happen, may favour another character, etc. Often enough class abilities and spells can overcome such bonuses or just get advantage. The Fighter in most situations cannot make up the difference and at best hope for Advantage. Would be a surprise to learn that not just Fighters get Advantage when the situation fits, that on top of spells and class abilities these other classes can also be granted situational advantage if not just get it auto from an ability or spell. A shock I know.

What if a Fighter has a specific background......But what if the bard has it
What if the Fighter comes up with a good plan.... you guessed it, what if the Bard had good plan.
I can go on but just like the nonsense arguments that Fighters can have feats, skills and backgrounds, the idea that the potential of a bonus due to a beneficial situation means that Fighters doesn't need anything is ridiculous for the reasons that other classes can find themselves in a beneficial situation and that is ignoring the simple fact that such things cannot be depended upon.

The fighter almost certainly has a background. Perhaps that background is useful in a different way in that example scenario or their background is especially useful in some other scenario where the Bard's noble background is not. I can see how 5e's excessive simplicity can make it difficult to grasp if not learned under editions that were more robust there but 3.5 bonus types and DMs best friend sections in the dmg might be particularly enlightening in that regard. I have a post somewhere with both in it but it's not something I can dig up at this hour from my phone