D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[EzekielRaiden]

I feel like this whole post is more of a fallacy than anything it's describing. Is there a name for the Fallacy of 'calling something a fallacy that isn't'?

I don't believe so. It would just be called a false claim. There is a "fallacy fallacy," but that is the incorrect presumption that, because someone's argument contains a fallacy, it must be that the conclusion they were going for is false. It's a fallacy because anyone can use fallacies to argue for things that are true, e.g. "All mammals have hair. Whales have hair. Therefore, whales are mammals." (This is a fallacious argument for a true thing, committing the formal fallacy of the undistributed middle. The correct syllogism would have as the first premise, "All and only mammals have hair.")

As evidence consider Fighter 2.0, such that it's built to be of comparable power to the Wizard. It's a perfectly fair complaint that it will essentially eliminate the PHB Fighter - and that's exactly what it will do.

How is that a "fair complaint"? The whole point is to "eliminate the PHB Fighter" and replace it with one that can elect to limit itself to the PHB Fighter, but is not beholden to being so limited.

The only contention is whether one thinks essentially replacing the PHB Fighter with Fighter 2.0 and making no other changes to the other classes is a good thing or a bad thing. But no matter the opinion, it's not a fallacy.

Not at all. The contention being made is, "No, you cannot replace the PHB Fighter--that would make it overpowered relative to the other Fighter-like classes!" That is the fallacy: that because one set of things was built to a low bar, and another set of things was built to a high bar, we not only can but must use the low bar to judge what is allowed and what isn't, even though there are--objectively!--things built taller.

Having a martial class that is more powerful than the Fighter, but still less powerful than the Wizard, could not under any reasonable definition be unbalanced in 5e. The most it could do would be to reveal how much of a martial/caster gap still remains for all of the classes stuck below that glass ceiling.

My personal opinion on this is that when nearly all the martial classes are near PHB Fighter power level then introducing a martial at Wizard power level would be detrimental to the game.

Or to say it another way, what's wrong with creating a Warlord you are content with at the PHB Fighter's power level? Why is a Warlord better at the Wizard's power level than the PHB Fighters power level?

Because you literally can't make a Warlord at that power level. It's not possible. Whatever thing you create will simply be inadequate to the task. Now, that does not at all mean that a Warlord would need to be at the (IMO excessive) power/versatility level of the Wizard. But trying to shackle it to the power level of the 5.0 Fighter? Not on your life.

And that is possibly the single most damning criticism I've ever made of the 5e Fighter. It's so weak, it literally can't power a perfectly functional class from the previous two editions.

 

[FrogReaver]

How is that a "fair complaint"? The whole point is to "eliminate the PHB Fighter" and replace it with one that can elect to limit itself to the PHB Fighter, but is not beholden to being so limited.

Ummm.. The whole point of my proposed Fighter 2.0 wasn’t to eliminate the PHB Fighter but to stand side by stand it. Just like the proposed wizard power level Warlord was meant to stand side by side the PHB Fighter.

Not at all. The contention being made is, "No, you cannot replace the PHB Fighter--that would make it overpowered relative to the other Fighter-like classes!" That is the fallacy: that because one set of things was built to a low bar, and another set of things was built to a high bar, we not only can but must use the low bar to judge what is allowed and what isn't, even though there are--objectively!--things built taller.

I’m not doing any of that???

Having a martial class that is more powerful than the Fighter, but still less powerful than the Wizard, could not under any reasonable definition be unbalanced in 5e. The most it could do would be to reveal how much of a martial/caster gap still remains for all of the classes stuck below that glass ceiling.

Balanced in relation to what? All 5e classes? Sure. Balanced in relation to all 5e martial classes? No.

Because you literally can't make a Warlord at that power level. It's not possible. Whatever thing you create will simply be inadequate to the task. Now, that does not at all mean that a Warlord would need to be at the (IMO excessive) power/versatility level of the Wizard. But trying to shackle it to the power level of the 5.0 Fighter? Not on your life.

I’ve made one. Maybe not one you like but it can be done.

 

[Oofta]

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.

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.


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.

The fact that other classes have the same options does not nullify the options the fighter has. This is not an issue at any table I've played with, quantum wizards (or bards) with exactly the right option at all times don't exist.

I'm done, there's no point to the spin cycle. I don't believe the fighter needs something no other class has in order to contribute to the game outside of combat.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Balanced in relation to what? All 5e classes? Sure. Balanced in relation to all 5e martial classes? No.

Do you not see how that is a serious condemnation of the alleged "balance" in 5e? Like, for real. You are literally, straight-up saying that martial characters are gimped compared to non-martial characters. You are thus saying we should neither add nor replace anything that would improve it.

Unless, of course, you aren't actually saying that? The whole point of the thread, from the OP on, is that people are saying, "No. You cannot add a Warlord that would be above the power level of other martial classes. That is unacceptable because it would be broken." But clearly 5e can handle things FAR more powerful than the level of martial classes--because that's what literally everything else is judged by! So it's not "overpowered"--it's simply above the point that martial characters are forced to stay below.

So. Are you saying you accept that martial characters currently are held below a power limit that is neither necessary (since other classes exceed it handily) nor warranted (since nothing in the fundamental concept requires such a limit)? If so, you literally aren't who the OP was talking about; you're comfortable adding new things that are, in fact, more powerful than the existing 5.0 options so we can raise martial characters up.

But it sounds, to me, like your "Fighter 2.0" is expected to be simply a co-equal alternative choice to the existing Fighter. In which case, particularly in light of the point made above about effectively nixing the old Fighter by creating something stronger, so everyone would just choose the stronger thing, you require that this new Fighter be no more nor less powerful than the existing one. If this is true, then that goes right back into what the OP is talking about: because the new thing cannot be allowed to eclipse any of the old things, it would be "unbalanced" to make it more powerful....even though 5e's "balance" already allows many things far more powerful than what is being asked for.

I’ve made one. Maybe not one you like but it can be done.

I sincerely doubt that it actually achieves anything like a 5e translation of what a 4e Warlord can do. In much the same way that the PDK does not, even remotely, achieve such a translation into 5e mechanics. It would, of course, be quite distinct from the 4e Warlord, if only because spells inflicting saving throws are a thing in 5e. But given the number of times I've been told that anything as simple as "allow someone else to make an attack" is totally unacceptable? You'd have to sell me on it, not just reference it obliquely.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The fact that other classes have the same options does not nullify the options the fighter has. This is not an issue at any table I've played with, quantum wizards (or bards) with exactly the right option at all times don't exist.

I'm done, there's no point to the spin cycle. I don't believe the fighter needs something no other class has in order to contribute to the game outside of combat.

And as I said already, nobody is talking about "quantum wizards." I even gave an example character above, with existing 5e options. Half-elf Silverquill Student Wizard, 16 Int/16 Cha/14 Dex. Sacrifices exactly none of the offensive or defensive capability (chromatic orb, magic missile, scorching ray, shield, mage armor, etc.), while having several of the strongest social utility spells in the game. And I didn't even pick a subclass; you can pick whatever one you like, so those can go to improving your combat tools even further.

It's a bit much to complain of others being broken records when you straight-up ignore anyone who points out that your arguments simply don't apply, with both general and specific examples.

 

[Oofta]

And as I said already, nobody is talking about "quantum wizards." I even gave an example character above, with existing 5e options. Half-elf Silverquill Student Wizard, 16 Int/16 Cha/14 Dex. Sacrifices exactly none of the offensive or defensive capability (chromatic orb, magic missile, scorching ray, shield, mage armor, etc.), while having several of the strongest social utility spells in the game. And I didn't even pick a subclass; you can pick whatever one you like, so those can go to improving your combat tools even further.

It's a bit much to complain of others being broken records when you straight-up ignore anyone who points out that your arguments simply don't apply, with both general and specific examples.

Right. Every situation the caster find themselves in they just happen to have the correct spell prepared and the spell slots available invalidates anything the fighter could possibly contribute is not a quantum caster issue. Gotcha.

I've played with dozens of groups over the course of 5E, at all levels of the game. I have yet to see a major issue.

edit; My point is that everyone is just repeating the same argument, it's not going anywhere.

 

[Oofta]

The one thing that I really don't understand is how people think charm person is not a terrible spell in most cases. It doesn't really do all that much, it just makes the target into a friendly acquaintance of the caster. Not a trusted ally or colleague, not someone you're going to automatically believe. A friendly acquaintance is someone you know by name, maybe make small talk with now and then but it rarely goes past talking about the weather. It's the neighbor you sort of know but are a little fuzzy on what their spouse's name is.

But even worse, after the spell ends they know that someone manipulated their thoughts and emotions. To me, this would be far worse than someone scamming or lying to me. It's a direct violation of who I am, my personal thoughts and emotions. I don't know how I could never trust them on anything again and I would let everyone know what they had done to me. I may not tell everyone about it I had been suckered because in that case I'd probably feel stupid for falling for something, with magic? With magic I didn't really stand a chance and anyone could fall victim to it.

I think the Friends cantrip (which is even worse because it only lasts a minute) was right to add the following sentence and I think it also applies to Charm Person:

When the spell ends, the creature realizes that you used magic to influence its mood and becomes hostile toward you. A creature prone to violence might attack you. Another creature might seek retribution in other ways (at the DM’s discretion), depending on the nature of your interaction with it.​

Want to make enemies and get a bad reputation everywhere you go in my campaign? Use charm person on a regular basis.

 

[Minigiant]

I think one aspect here not said is there is usually a "Gentleman's Agreement" in D&D 5e.

1. Players don't pick the same non-group skills as anyone in the Party. If PC 1 has History, PC 2 cannot pick History.
2. Players don't pick spells that copy their allies. If PC 1 is a picklock, PC 2 cannot pick a spellthat picks locks or gives a bonus to pick locks.

The issue is this is just equiette noot hard rules. And at 4 or more PCs, hard to follow. And at level 10+, hard to follow. And some people just sing RATM's "Killing in the Name".

I mean, part of the reason 4e was design the way it was is that everyone was breaking 3e's "Gentleman's Agreement" and it was hard not to.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Right. Every situation the caster find themselves in they just happen to have the correct spell prepared and the spell slots available invalidates anything the fighter could possibly contribute is not a quantum caster issue. Gotcha.

I've played with dozens of groups over the course of 5E, at all levels of the game. I have yet to see a major issue.

edit; My point is that everyone is just repeating the same argument, it's not going anywhere.

That is, quite literally, not what anyone here has argued. Not even once. If you can cite someone saying that, awesome! But I haven't seen it.

Instead--just as I did above--they note that all you need is a core of really great versatile spells. And that's exactly what I said to you before. Spells like fly, invisibility, haste, enhance ability, etc. And you can prepare level+Int mod spells per day--should be starting with 4 and working toward 13 by level 8. I'm pretty sure a list of 13 first to fourth level spells can bring up both a solid core of great offense and defense spells, and various generically useful spells, and have a few left over for whatever thing you'd like to be especially good at.

That's...kind of literally what Treantmonk and other Wizard optimizers do. They hunt down the great, versatile, powerful spells.

And then they add in all the ritual spells that are worth picking up, because yeah, you literally do have those in your Batman utility belt. They just take 10 minutes to cast. Whoop-de-friggin-do.

 

[Oofta]

I think one aspect here not said is there is usually a "Gentleman's Agreement" in D&D 5e.

1. Players don't pick the same non-group skills as anyone in the Party. If PC 1 has History, PC 2 cannot pick History.
2. Players don't pick spells that copy their allies. If PC 1 is a picklock, PC 2 cannot pick a spellthat picks locks or gives a bonus to pick locks.

The issue is this is just equiette noot hard rules. And at 4 or more PCs, hard to follow. And at level 10+, hard to follow. And some people just sing RATM's "Killing in the Name".

I mean, part of the reason 4e was design the way it was is that everyone was breaking 3e's "Gentleman's Agreement" and it was hard not to.

In order to give someone advantage on a check, you have to also be proficient in the skill. So doubling up may not be a bad idea in many cases.