D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Eubani]

Two things have held back 5e more than anything else Oversimplification and being shackled to the past. Oversimplification removes granularity and design space. Being shackled to the past has stifled innovation and more than a few previewed ideas.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And if the Bard had the Noble background?

Then the Fighter would have the Folk Hero background, and the guard would be salt of the earth common folk.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

All PCs can contribute. All have ability scores, 4 proficiencies, a background feature and a player with a working brain.
All classes have additional features that allow them to contribute outside of combat.
The suggestion is to give the fighter class options to bring their non-combat options closer to those of other classes.

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 fighter is still having to roll for it. The bard might have the option to teleport or phase their way out, Shatter the door to smash it, Animate it to open, Polymorph themselves into something with a better strength etc. etc.
Even if they don't happen to have a spell that could be leveraged in that situation, they still have better ability checks than the fighter does. Therefore even if they have a lower bonus for this check in this very specific situation leveraging the fighter's primary ability score, they have a decent chance at other options like diving out the window and landing safely with Acrobatics.

This is the heart of the issue: Much can be achieved with just creativity, a hammer, and a complete disregard for the Laws of God and Man.
Much more can be achieved with creativity, a hammer, and a toolkit full of more specialised tools. They can not only do things that no amount of creativity would allow the hammer to achieve, they can also be used with creativity to achieve much more.
And, at the end of the day, if you cannot use any of those more specialised tools, because you don't have the right ones, or you already used them, or you're saving them for something else . . .
You still have that hammer.

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.

The issue there is that unless the DM lays a fairly heavy thumb on the scales, the Bard's background is going to be the one that is useful an equal amount of times as the Fighter's. And there will be a fair amount of the time when neither can be applied and a check is called for, which is where the the bard having a much greater total of their modifiers to ability checks will mean that they will generally be better at those. Plus options like disguise or alter self to look like people the guard would be willing to parley with, detect thoughts to give an idea of what approach would go well, suggestion spell etc if the bard has them.

 

[Eubani]

Then the Fighter would have the Folk Hero background, and the guard would be salt of the earth common folk.

You can twist the guard's point of view in any direction to support/oppose either the Fighter or the Bard thus it ceases to matter as to the Fighter needing support or not.

 

[overgeeked]

Two things have held back 5e more than anything else Oversimplification and being shackled to the past. Oversimplification removes granularity and design space. Being shackled to the past has stifled innovation and more than a few previewed ideas.

In the past D&D was much simpler than 5E. Only 3X and 4E were heavier. It all depends on which past you shackle the current game to.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You can twist the guard's point of view in any direction to support/oppose either the Fighter or the Bard

As DM, you can, so you do so in favor of the fighter (or whichever social-pillar-lacking PC you decide will show up the Bard as you move the contribution spotlight around).
Obviously, good players will each take a different background to facilitate this.

In the past D&D was much simpler than 5E.

AD&D was complex, even baroque, and detailed - had more than 5e in terms of sheer volume of player facing material, too, when you consider 2e. BECMI had scope 5e doesn't dream of with the Master and Immortals sets.

But, 0D&D and B/X, sure.

D&D has always been a complex game for its scope. The scope of 3e & 4e was just greater than that of 5e.

 

[Eubani]

As DM, you can, so you do so in favor of the fighter (or whichever social-pillar-lacking PC you decide will show up the Bard as you move the contribution spotlight around).
Obviously, good players will each take a different background to facilitate this.


AD&D was complex, even baroque, and detailed - had more than 5e in terms of sheer volume of player facing material, too, when you consider 2e.

Can you or should you count on DM to lean the odds in your favor? At say a league table should it be allowed? Should a class depend upon DM favor to be equally viable or is that a sign that something needs to be fixed.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

You’ve come across vastly more like you’re saying that another version would be more popular, not could, and that the existing fighter is only popular due to lack of alternative.

Which is very very different from what you have just said. People are responding to the latter, not the former.

 

[Clint_L]

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.

No, that is not proof of your claim that "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." It's not remotely proof. How do you interpret that as proof?

I think you are hung up on tone.

No, I am hung up on you claiming that your opinions are facts. See above.

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.

Just stop making claims about what other people want. You have no idea what other people want. Nor have I read a single person claim that "the fighter is popular so it's perfect and needs no improvements." That's a straw man argument. What various people have broadly suggested is that the popularity of the fighter suggests that the argument that the fighter is underpowered and needs vast upgrades is probably not correct.

That's the core of the crab bucket fallacy.

Not an actual 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.

Straw man argument, again. For example, see my comments re. the fighter, above. Literally not one person in any thread that I have read on this forum has made anything like that statement.

The fighter is not perfect in the eyes of most of the community.

Again, stop trying to speak for "the community"*. Just stop. It's obnoxious. I'm part of the "community." You don't speak for me. Speak for yourself.

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.

See above. You're not "the community."

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

Literally not one person has asserted that the fighter is "perfect." How can a class in a game played by millions even be perfect? This is an inherently subjective argument, and there are as many opinions on the perfection, or lack thereof, of the fighter as there are players.

 

[Clint_L]

Can you or should you count on DM to lean the odds in your favor? At say a league table should it be allowed? Should a class depend upon DM favor to be equally viable or is that a sign that something needs to be fixed.

Fighters do not remotely depend on DM favour to be viable. That's monks. You're thinking of monks.

Go look at just about any tier ranking of 5e classes. Fighter is pretty much always middle to upper tier. Fighters are extremely strong in combat, which is the most important pillar of most games, and depending on build can be good in the other pillars, as well. Not as good as a bard, but a bard will never approach the DPR and survivability of a fighter. No class gets to be the best at everything. Except maybe paladin (only half kidding).

I've been playing this game for a long time. I watch/listen to all the actual plays shows I can (it's my side entertainment while painting miniatures). Plenty of fighters. None of them struggling to be viable.