D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Swarmkeeper]

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.

Fair enough. But see my thoughts on this being a collaborative game above (ETA... ack, new page... here ).

I guess I would also just add that "neither can be applied" makes the situation seem very binary. Another possible adjudication is that invoking a background or ability or trait or whatever might not get you auto-success but it might get you advantage on the DM's called roll (or perhaps disadvantage if you've very much misinterpreted a particular clue!)

 

[Zubatcarteira]

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"

Yeah, definitely. Int, wis and cha will come up more in social situations, it's just that the mind control spells are a bit hard to use most of the time, I mostly see them used when they don't have components like with Sorcerers or a magic item.

 

[Oofta]

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.

The requirement is that the character could attempt it alone. The DM makes the call on whether someone can make the check. Perhaps the DM decided that the character has to have proficiency in history in order to remember some obscure piece of lore or the door is stuck and it's a DC 20 to make it budge. For the former you have to have a history proficiency for the latter that 8 strength bard with no proficiency in athletics can't help because they couldn't open the door even on a 20.

 

[Minigiant]

The requirement is that the character could attempt it alone. The DM makes the call on whether someone can make the check. Perhaps the DM decided that the character has to have proficiency in history in order to remember some obscure piece of lore or the door is stuck and it's a DC 20 to make it budge. For the former you have to have a history proficiency for the latter that 8 strength bard with no proficiency in athletics can't help because they couldn't open the door even on a 20.

The point is that it's not a hard rule and a DM judgment and the reason why you see this comment all the time is because it's not even a DM advice in the book.

You constantly see people say these thing.because of the oversimplization vagueness and appeal to tradition in 5e's design.

You personally don't see it because you're a good experienced DM.

However D&D had a large influx of new and average quality players and DMs.
.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yep, I do.

3 core classes. Abilities are modifiers only, not 3-18 (or up to 20 I guess). No skills (if you're proficient in Wisdom, you add that modifier to all skill checks that are wisdom based), and no bonus actions.

Nice!

You take a background no matter what. You are presenting this as something you exchange for something. You don't. Everyone takes a background. The Wizard gets just as much from "take a Background" as the Fighter does! That's why I keep calling this the "zero point." It is where things START. Everyone gets a background! It does not push anyone forward or back one iota!

I think what you’re missing is that the people you’re arguing with don’t believe that each class needs special features for each pillar. Essentially, from our POV, the response is mostly variations of, “okay, so what?”

Yes, I'm aware. Despite the vaunted rhetoric about 5e being so easy to homebrew and so much more welcoming to 3PP, the community's receptivity to such things is, in my experience, extremely low.

It is easy to homebrew and 3pp is a huge market. It would be nonsense to claim that 5e isn’t welcoming to 3pp overall just because you local experience is super “RAW and official only”.

Further, charm person is far better than you give credit for--unless you have a DM actively trying to make spells worse

No, it isn’t. It is vastly worse than just using skills. It’s a last resort.

. I don't assume such things (mostly because, in my experience, they're much less common than DMs who treat spells as auto-win buttons.) And it's not like charm person is even the best social spell! That would be either, as I said, enhance ability, choosing Eagle's Splendor, a mere one slot difference (trivial past 5th level) to get 95% of the effect of charm person with none of the negatives, or suggestion. Because suggestion is insanely powerful for shaping the behavior of others. Detect thoughts and Acquisitions Inc.'s gift of gab deserve honorable mention as well. If your DM actually rolls checks for NPCs (e.g. Insight checks) instead of just declaring how NPCs respond, silvery barbs is likewise amazing. Even friends has its uses--disguise yourself first, either as someone you know whom you'd like the target to hate, or as just some random Joe Schmoe, so you take no flak yourself.

Higher level spells, and spells that will be taken as attacks when you’re done. Okay. Gift of gab is the only one that I can agree with you on, here.

And--get this--Wizards can also be decent at Persuasion. In fact, they're better at doing so until very high level, because they only really care about Intelligence; Dex and Con are nice to have, but not critical.

Irrelevant.

Feats that the Wizard can also take. Again, no progress is gained here. There is nothing the Fighter can do that the Wizard cannot also do. Indeed, because Fighters definitely need at least two physical stats (Str/Dex and Con) and Charisma, they're in the hole--they need those extra ASIs just to keep up with the Wizard.

They don’t need to keep up with the wizard in all pillars of play.

Because if you never have moments like that, it means the class brings nothing special to the table in the areas the game has told you are important. It has been intentionally designed to be terrible at the very things they say "this is an ESSENTIAL part of play."

Designing something to contribute nothing whatsoever to something you've told players is an essential part of play is bad design. Period.

Well no, it’s a type of design you dont prefer. It also isn’t true. To be true, the fighter would need to have penalties in the social pillar. A class not adding any new features to your character in an important area of the game but doing so in others is just assymetrical design.

Heck, even there the fact that the playtest falls prey to the same problem is explicitly stated.

What

This is because people keep mistaking what popular means when WOTC is talking.

Popular is a function of how often played not satisfaction.

No one is mistaking that.

Also could become would as the Community who playtested the 2013 version is vastly different from the one currently playing it now. WoTC says D&D is played majorly under 40 years and has a large uptich of fans from other demographics. It would be nearly impossible forso many to beinjected into the community and the favorability of 5e aspects to be constant without a vast cultural constant.

Prove how that makes your hypothesis inevitably true.

The majority is divided. This is why the 2013 playtest shifted so many times.

And where are they? They are here. We get a topic on this every week. Go on Youtube, Reddit, Twitch. I had to stop listening to D&D podcasts because there is somuch whining and complaining and mockery by 5e fans. Do you know how many times I've heard "I know we joke about 5e but I like 5e and isn't okay to like 5e" in a podcast?

I have never, in almost 40 years of life, been a fan of something popular and not seen the behavior you describe. Literally everything popular gets this treatment.

The one thing that I really don't understand is how people think charm person is not a terrible spell in most cases.

Their DM doesn’t impose reasonable consequences, maybe. Some DMs don’t actually try to make social interaction a challenge at all.

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.

I have never had a group that didn’t double up when doing so fits the PC concepts. What’s more, this is a DM guidance issue, not a rules issue. The DM should be challenging the party in such a way that multiple characters need to have social skills. The game needs guidance for the DM to give you more than one PC that needs interaction at the same time, not weird artificially constructed challenges where the bard can just “do social” for the group as everyone else just hangs out.

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".

Or when there are multiple people who need interacting with, or multiple challenges that speak to the “face” characters strengths, or when dealing with NPCs that aren’t going to respond to the bard, etc

 

[SteveC]

It looks like this thread is breaking down like other threads we've had along these lines (yes, I know that's pretty obvious). As someone who missed the middle years of 5E, I wonder if we were having these same discussions then? I just wanted to open a discussion about why this even matters and why I care about it. Why I'm still reading the thread.

Most importantly, it's because we are getting a "new" D&D. I'm honestly not sure how different it's going to be from following the playtests, but ... I'm hoping for more options for martial characters, and more importantly, I'm hoping to open up designs for more types of characters.

But secondly it's because D&D casts such a broad shadow. There are a lot of interesting games coming out, and even more interesting campaign settings. Even with the OGL issue, many of them are using the 5E chassis. At this point 5E inspired games are right alongside PbtA and Forged in the Dark games as the "engine" game designers use. Designers who use the 5E chassis are assuming it's using good design strategy, and for many kinds of games it's just not.

I think one thing we have consensus on in this thread is that D&D makes a good D&D game. And that's what it's there for. It doesn't make a good chassis for other kinds of games, say, a Wuxia game because of the assumptions behind the curtain. Similarly, I don't have the 5E based Lord of the Rings game, but you'd need to completely rewrite classes from D&D to have them make sense in that world. I don't have any idea if they did that. And the Doctor Who game? Obviously those of you who have played these games can (and should!) correct me.

So that's why I care: I think balance based on what a character can contribute in a game session is a good design strategy, and I'd hope it would be embraced by the designers. I'm still exploring game options, and when I see the upcoming Final Fantasy game possibly using the 5E chassis, I just shake my head.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't mind 5e-derived games at all, but I really wish folks would promote and play other games altogether rather than demand WotC squeeze everything they want into D&D. There are games for every taste out there. The core three doesn't need to encompass every playstyle.

And I say this not because I play WotC 5e, but because what they publish has a Borg effect on the rest of the industry, and the more second-rate versions of stuff they force into their game, the more likely other 5e developers will feel constrained to follow suit and allow themselves to be assimilated into the Collective.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

I have been working, mostly in concept, on a Warlord based on the 5.0 Warlock shape.

The concept sketch is:

• First-level choice is your Leadership Style, which determines your Leadership modifier: Bravura (Cha), Tactical (Int), Observant (Wis).
• Warlock spell slots become Strategems--you have to practice them with your group in advance, hence why you can't have too many available at any given time.
• At 2nd, you begin to pick up Machinations (=Invocations), the various tricks and tools that factor into your specific way of leading.
• At 3rd, you pick your Specialty, your subclass proper, which gives you the key thing you do. E.g. the Mage-Captain specializes in amplifying magical attacks and getting the most out of spellcasting, while the Commando makes the best use of stealth tactics and precision damage. The Field Medic would be the pure healing-focused one, for example; all other forms would have passable healing, on par with something like a Bard, not a Life Cleric.
• Potentially--if it survives playtesting--I'd like to have some kind of build up and expending of a resource, Gambit or Grit or something like that. This would act as a gate on the better Strategems or unlock better/cooler/more useful features of workhorse ones.

Just as with the Warlock, some Warlord Machinations would require that you have a specific Specialty and/or Style, and would be keyed off your Warlord level, not your character level. The base class would get Light and Medium armor and shield proficiency, simple weapons, and a small selection of martial weapons (with, presumably, some options to get heavier armor and/or heavier weapons.)

The one sticking point is that I still haven't come up with an effective, and more importantly thematic, mechanical alternative for Eldritch Arcana. Once that's solved, the core concept is ready, just needs the mechanical details filled in so testing can begin.

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.

I mean, when I'm saying the magic IS the problem, it's a bit hard to just sweep it under the rug. But alright. I was using the background to show that anyone can be good at Cha skills if they want; the background isn't the special part here, other than the access to magic.

But the Wizard's access to magic lets it do a ton of incredibly powerful things all by character level 3. Continuous advantage on all Cha checks for an hour--no downsides. Meanwhile, we had to wait through six months of playtesting to get...uh...2/day (+1 per short rest) getting to add 1d10 to ability checks.

That's literally just getting a suped-up cantrip, except now it's limited to 3-4 uses per day. (Specifically, this is a superchaged guidance.)

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

Then you are overlooking the actual gold mine. Charm person is actually very limited, needing a second spell (disguise self) or special circumstances (people you're unlikely to ever meet again) to be any good. I listed a few before, but here they are again, along with a few more for comprehensiveness. Cantrip: It's not on the Wizard list, but as mentioned, guidance is awesome. 1st: disguise self, find familiar, silvery barbs (only if the DM actually has NPCs roll checks, not just fiat declare results). 2nd: alter self (upgrade from disguise self), borrowed knowledge, detect thoughts, enhance ability, gift of gab, invisibility (indirectly), suggestion. 3rd level: Not very much here actually, though clairvoyance is indirectly useful and tongues eliminates any pesky language barriers. 4th: not too many here either, but greater invisibility (again, indirect) and Mordenkainen's private sanctum (safe diplomatic space that can't be eavesdropped on) have their uses. 5th: dominate person (note, it does not say the target knows you did this!), geas, modify memory, Rary's telepathic bond, and skill empowerment are all quite good.

Is that a sufficient accounting? Looking just for "inflicts the charmed condition" is a poor approach for finding the very good social-affecting spells. The reason charmed is useful is that it grants advantage on all social rolls. Enhance ability can do that with one small restriction (only Cha, not all social rolls) and zero downsides. Note also that I am NOT saying a single Wizard absolutely has to have every single one of these prepared. They don't. This is just a shortlist of the really good social and/or versatile spells a social-focused Wizard would want.

3. This is a collaborative game where a shared spotlight is encouraged.

I am of the opinion that spotlight balance is an idea that sounds wonderful...and doesn't work.

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.

The problem is, the game encourages players to selfishly work to make sure that the things they're great at are the ones that happen the most--and to reshape the process of play to facilitate this. The dirt-simple version of this is "uh oh, Cleric's out of spells, guess we'd better rest for the day so we don't get killed." The Wizard has the same issue.

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 don't care, why should we care about what they think? They literally wouldn't care either way, so it doesn't matter.

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

I fear I can't respond to points that might theoretically be made. I hope that is an acceptable answer.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I have been working, mostly in concept, on a Warlord based on the 5.0 Warlock shape.

The concept sketch is:

• First-level choice is your Leadership Style, which determines your Leadership modifier: Bravura (Cha), Tactical (Int), Observant (Wis).
• Warlock spell slots become Strategems--you have to practice them with your group in advance, hence why you can't have too many available at any given time.
• At 2nd, you begin to pick up Machinations (=Invocations), the various tricks and tools that factor into your specific way of leading.
• At 3rd, you pick your Specialty, your subclass proper, which gives you the key thing you do. E.g. the Mage-Captain specializes in amplifying magical attacks and getting the most out of spellcasting, while the Commando makes the best use of stealth tactics and precision damage. The Field Medic would be the pure healing-focused one, for example; all other forms would have passable healing, on par with something like a Bard, not a Life Cleric.
• Potentially--if it survives playtesting--I'd like to have some kind of build up and expending of a resource, Gambit or Grit or something like that. This would act as a gate on the better Strategems or unlock better/cooler/more useful features of workhorse ones.

Just as with the Warlock, some Warlord Machinations would require that you have a specific Specialty and/or Style, and would be keyed off your Warlord level, not your character level. The base class would get Light and Medium armor and shield proficiency, simple weapons, and a small selection of martial weapons (with, presumably, some options to get heavier armor and/or heavier weapons.)

The one sticking point is that I still haven't come up with an effective, and more importantly thematic, mechanical alternative for Eldritch Arcana. Once that's solved, the core concept is ready, just needs the mechanical details filled in so testing can begin.


I mean, when I'm saying the magic IS the problem, it's a bit hard to just sweep it under the rug. But alright. I was using the background to show that anyone can be good at Cha skills if they want; the background isn't the special part here, other than the access to magic.

But the Wizard's access to magic lets it do a ton of incredibly powerful things all by character level 3. Continuous advantage on all Cha checks for an hour--no downsides. Meanwhile, we had to wait through six months of playtesting to get...uh...2/day (+1 per short rest) getting to add 1d10 to ability checks.

That's literally just getting a suped-up cantrip, except now it's limited to 3-4 uses per day. (Specifically, this is a superchaged guidance.)


Then you are overlooking the actual gold mine. Charm person is actually very limited, needing a second spell (disguise self) or special circumstances (people you're unlikely to ever meet again) to be any good. I listed a few before, but here they are again, along with a few more for comprehensiveness. Cantrip: It's not on the Wizard list, but as mentioned, guidance is awesome. 1st: disguise self, find familiar, silvery barbs (only if the DM actually has NPCs roll checks, not just fiat declare results). 2nd: alter self (upgrade from disguise self), borrowed knowledge, detect thoughts, enhance ability, gift of gab, invisibility (indirectly), suggestion. 3rd level: Not very much here actually, though clairvoyance is indirectly useful and tongues eliminates any pesky language barriers. 4th: not too many here either, but greater invisibility (again, indirect) and Mordenkainen's private sanctum (safe diplomatic space that can't be eavesdropped on) have their uses. 5th: dominate person (note, it does not say the target knows you did this!), geas, modify memory, Rary's telepathic bond, and skill empowerment are all quite good.

Is that a sufficient accounting? Looking just for "inflicts the charmed condition" is a poor approach for finding the very good social-affecting spells. The reason charmed is useful is that it grants advantage on all social rolls. Enhance ability can do that with one small restriction (only Cha, not all social rolls) and zero downsides. Note also that I am NOT saying a single Wizard absolutely has to have every single one of these prepared. They don't. This is just a shortlist of the really good social and/or versatile spells a social-focused Wizard would want.


I am of the opinion that spotlight balance is an idea that sounds wonderful...and doesn't work.


The problem is, the game encourages players to selfishly work to make sure that the things they're great at are the ones that happen the most--and to reshape the process of play to facilitate this. The dirt-simple version of this is "uh oh, Cleric's out of spells, guess we'd better rest for the day so we don't get killed." The Wizard has the same issue.


If they don't care, why should we care about what they think? They literally wouldn't care either way, so it doesn't matter.


I fear I can't respond to points that might theoretically be made. I hope that is an acceptable answer.

Sounds like a cool class, and a great example of my option 2. I'm looking forward to seeing it once you've worked out the details.

 

[Scribe]

You take a background no matter what. You are presenting this as something you exchange for something. You don't. Everyone takes a background. The Wizard gets just as much from "take a Background" as the Fighter does! That's why I keep calling this the "zero point." It is where things START. Everyone gets a background! It does not push anyone forward or back one iota!

"I want my CHARACTER to perform better in this pillar."
"I think I'll take a Background which will facilitate this goal."

Now, granted, it doesnt make the FIGHTER better at that pillar, and granted, I do believe there is a gap (because of Spells and Casting, not the WIZARD design) but the Background very much is an option.

Its this 'well the issue is Fighter doesnt get X, but Wizard can do Y!' when it has nothing to do with Wizard, as a class definition. Wizards boring as hell, its the Spells, the Spell Lists, that actually are the issue.

We do not play a Class, we play a Character.