D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[payn]

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.

Held back in what way exactly?

 

[Minigiant]

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.

That's a house rule.
The help action does not require proficiency.

In core 5e: The only time doubling up is not breaking the "Gentleman's Agreement" are group checks.
That house rule and the 4e skill challenge house rule allow for doubling up without breaking the "Gentleman's Agreement".

 

[Minigiant]

Held back in what way exactly?

Creation of new options.

For example, there is no 5e psion because as WOTC says the community wants too many opposed aspects in the class. There is no way to make 1 psion that makes the fans happer (ie the Mystic). And WOTC only wants make 1 simple psion class for all.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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 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.

I agree in principle with nearly all of what you're saying here, but I'm curious if you have a call to action. Are you trying to make something happen? To me, the call to action most likely to result in positive movement is to try to convince WotC 5e players to take 3pp more seriously.

 

[James Gasik]

That's a house rule.
The help action does not require proficiency.

In core 5e: The only time doubling up is not breaking the "Gentleman's Agreement" are group checks.
That house rule and the 4e skill challenge house rule allow for doubling up without breaking the "Gentleman's Agreement".

There is an exception, if the primary check requires proficiency in the first place, you need proficiency to help- like opening a lock requires Thieve's Tools proficiency.

 

[Oofta]

That's a house rule.
The help action does not require proficiency.

In core 5e: The only time doubling up is not breaking the "Gentleman's Agreement" are group checks.
That house rule and the 4e skill challenge house rule allow for doubling up without breaking the "Gentleman's Agreement".

Working together section in the PHB:
a character who lacks that proficiency can’t help another character in that task.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

I think it's worth noting that spell components are visible to people close to you, so if you cast Charm Person or Suggestion in front of someone, they'll definitely see it happening, along with anyone else around. It's best if you're alone with the target, but they're really hard to use in social situations if you don't have Subtle spell or something similar.

 

[Minigiant]

Working together section in the PHB:
a character who lacks that proficiency can’t help another character in that task.

No. That's only if the task requires proficency.

A character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could attempt alone. For example, trying to open a lock requires proficiency with thieves' tools, so a character who lacks that proficiency can't help another character in that task.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

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.

You're not wrong on these points. But I don't think that your 5e points are as comprehensive as they might seem.

For sake of discussion, I think it useful to also consider:

1. How about a Half-elf Silverquill Student Fighter 16 Dex/14 Con/16 Cha? Better Dex and same Cha as your Wizard. (Of course, my earlier argument is that any slight differences in skill proficiencies is not really noticeable in any one session due to small sample size and swinginess of the d20. So there's that. But I also understand it is really important to some players, so it is worth noting.) Of course, yeah, Magic, but I think we'll keep this point about stats.

2. Would love to hear more about all these "strongest social utility spells in the game" that you are noting. By my accounting - and I'm specifically looking at those spells that result in the Charmed condition so I could be overlooking some other good stuff here - Charm Person is the only one available at 1st tier and the target knows they were Charmed when it ends... which potentially brings on its own complications... which, don't get me wrong, could be a really fun part of the next challenge in the game. Dominate Person doesn't come to bear until 9th level. But is it worth taking and/or preparing and burning that 5th level slot over? Maybe, maybe not.
ETA: ah, I see some of the other spells you've mentioned in @doctorbadwolf's response to you. Some decent stuff there with enhance ability: eagle's splendor, gift of gab, and silvery barbs, I'll concede. They, like any other spell used in social situations, all come with a cost, however, and aren't always applicable. Eagle's splendor can be replicated via Inspiration (if your table uses it) or by Aiding Another or by DM adjudication if you lean into something particularly pertinent to the scene. Nonetheless, I may grab silvery barbs for my chronurgy wizard in the session I'm not DMing as that could be fun one to spring in a social scene - similar to his Chronal Shift feature - appreciate the tip!

3. This is a collaborative game where a shared spotlight is encouraged. That's both the responsibility of the DM and each of the players. If the Wizard player is trying to dominate (or actually dominating) every social interaction scene without giving the Fighter player (or other players for that matter) a chance to contribute, we're entering territory beyond the mechanical rules.

4. This is a collaborative game which also means that players can be happy if another character is (or is perceived to be) better/stronger/faster/whatever at certain things at certain times that benefit the party. Kudos! Now we're likely closer to our shared goals.

5. Maybe the Fighter player knows all these points that have been discussed or perhaps doesn't or perhaps doesn't even care - if they aren't even interested in participating in social interaction and just want to pretend smash things, ok then. None of your or my points even matter. They are along for the ride and enjoying watching others move the story forward to the next combat.

6. Some other things that we haven't thought of (or stated) yet but might be important to other tables...

 

[Minigiant]

I think it's worth noting that spell components are visible to people close to you, so if you cast Charm Person or Suggestion in front of someone, they'll definitely see it happening, along with anyone else around. It's best if you're alone with the target, but they're really hard to use in social situations if you don't have Subtle spell or something similar.

I think the point is that since STR has only one skill and has no social feature, Con has none and is linked to STR users, and Dex is a god stat, there is nothing stopping a nonSTR magic using PC from having the same or higher Cha and proficiency as the STR PC AND still having magic.

Expect for the "Gentleman's Agreement"