D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

The two are inseparable, because there's practically nothing within the Wizard class except getting more spells or making spells better. That's the problem. Spell design is the only design that has any meaning for the Wizard class, and that's exactly what they intended when they made it.

The Wizard is broken because all it does is MOAR SPELLS, and spells are (and remain) a problem.

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

...for which Class is by far the most important ingredient.

This is like saying "we do not eat Toppings, we eat Pizza." Sure, but a pizza that is literally just crust, no sauce, no cheese, not even the option of toppings, is clearly less than a pizza with cheese and your choice of essentially any topping on the menu. Does it matter that you can't pick more than 5 toppings if you can have any of several dozen in that set of 5?

Background is part of the crust. You can't have a pizza without a crust. You can do some creative stuff with different crusts...but it's still just the crust. Spellcasters, and especially Wizards, get to pile a ton of toppings on top of the sauce and the cheese. Fighters don't even get sauce. Barbarians at least get the option of a thin basting of sauce.

 

[Minigiant]

I had a fighter with Charisma 10 who was not locked out of the social pillar, I was trained in intimidation for a mighty +2. I think the issue is that people are thinking that the party can stop, pick someone to speak, and have them be the only one interacting with NPCs. In actual play though, at least in the games I've run and played in, that is rarely the case. Social interaction seems to happen somewhat organically, sometimes the party is split, sometimes I was first through the door or sometimes I'd just speak, quickly throwing something out which ends up being a deception check. Sometimes, I roll high and that +0 doesn't matter, sometimes I don't and then other things (like combat) happen. But I was not locked out of the social pillar at all and while I'm sure there are some groups that only let the bard talk or the wizard investigate, I don't believe that the majority of DnD players play that way.

My point from the very beginning is that the rules that are given in the player handbook and the dungeon Master guide are so simple and with so little margin that none of what you said actually matters. Because there is no general actual play description.

Fifth edition actually ran away from telling people how to actually run social encounters.

Because of that a DM allowing one person with the highest charisma modifier to do all the talking is not wrong because the books don't tell him he's wrong The game doesn't discourage it either.

Some tables ignore stats for social encounters completely.

Some tables do a mix of both. whatever is more fun at the time.

Some tables use social skill challenges from 4e.

You really can't have a game what you have some social accounters a lot of social encounters no social encounters roll for social encounters don't roll for social encounters sometimes roll for social encounters.

Then have barely any guidance on it , no variant rules, and rely on the DMs to be experienced from previous years

Then build a core system that is heavily spewed to one kind of play over another and then not tell anybody that.

then do it again for exploration.

 

[Minigiant]

And yet if you attack the party with shadows, everyone who dumped Strength starts to complain.

Or if they need to climb something more difficult than a ladder.

That's the same problem.

But that 5% increase to succeed is what separates good from "the game is trash"!

Never said the game is trash

I said that the game is dishonest and doesn't tell you what the space assumptions around the gameplay is and how you can change them and what the effects if you changing them is.

The poster child of fantasy RPGs sucks people into the game telling them that they can do certain things but doesn't support the mechanically. And then doesn't inform DMs that it doesn't support these things mechanically and how to adjust the game in order to support those things mechanically.

I mean the game didn't even support rapier users or light armor warriors into 2000.

 

[Scott Christian]

in 5e yes.

It's too easy to get a Cha modifer of +2 or more for the other 3 classic classes without hurting combat ability.
Wizards need only Int as a little Dex
Clerics need only Wis as a little Str
Rogues only needs Dex and have 2 bonus skill proficiency.

Then you have THREE Cha classes and a druid who can ignore their physical scores completely.

If the party decides to convice a guard, it is unlikely the party will choose the fighter (or barbarian or monk) to talk.

Can I ask a question:

How do you RP? I am not being sarcastic. I am being earnest. It is a good faith question from how I see it. For example, here might be a typical RP moment for us:

Scenario one: Our group is in a fight. My half-orc fighter does something incredibly gory to an opponent, and after describing said gore, I tell the DM I am looking at the other opponents drenched in said gore, and then ask if making an intimidation check is possible. If he allows it, I roll. Sometimes, depending on what I actually just did and who we're fighting, I may even have advantage.

Scenario two: Our group is talking to the creepy spa caretakers. Our paladin starts questioning their use of decor, thinking it is a little off. Our bard dismisses the whole thing. Our warlock begins to question too. The caretakers describe being one with nature and point to decorations out in the back of the inn. Then my half-orc fighter tries to persuade one of the caretakers to take a walk and show explain to me what they mean. The DM asks me to make a persuasion roll.

Scenario three: Our group is speaking with an incredibly scary night hag trying to barter the freedom of three dryads we know she has captured. Our paladin, who just can't let the dryads suffer, starts trying to make a deal. During that time the hag tells us she had "saved" the dryads from the City of Brass, where they would have been a delicacy to the efreet guards. My half-orc warrior begins to weave a tale about how my aunt used to talk of such a place, and that he thinks the hag had been going there illegally. Hence, we might use it against her if she is not careful. The DM asks me to roll a deception check. (I fail miserably by the way.)

In each of these, we are not plotting who has the highest number or advantage. We are roleplaying, and sometimes we try things that require the DM to ask for a roll. Outside of carefully plotted plans (and even those go awry), our group roleplays their characters, and then we either: A) ask if we can roll or B) get told to roll. During RP (charisma-based skills) it is much more likely to be B.

So are all your RP moments planned out where you always have the best person for the task at hand? I am confused. (Thank you for the clarification.)

 

[tetrasodium]

in 5e yes.

It's too easy to get a Cha modifer of +2 or more for the other 3 classic classes without hurting combat ability.
Wizards need only Int as a little Dex
Clerics need only Wis as a little Str
Rogues only needs Dex and have 2 bonus skill proficiency.

Then you have THREE Cha classes and a druid who can ignore their physical scores completely.

If the party decides to convice a guard, it is unlikely the party will choose the fighter (or barbarian or monk) to talk.

Why is an int based class being blamed for its charisma based counterpart(s) with the vast majority of the wizard spell list to choose their charisma based spells from?

 

[Minigiant]

Can I ask a question:

How do you RP? I am not being sarcastic. I am being earnest. It is a good faith question from how I see it. For example, here might be a typical RP moment for us:

Scenario one: Our group is in a fight. My half-orc fighter does something incredibly gory to an opponent, and after describing said gore, I tell the DM I am looking at the other opponents drenched in said gore, and then ask if making an intimidation check is possible. If he allows it, I roll. Sometimes, depending on what I actually just did and who we're fighting, I may even have advantage.

Scenario two: Our group is talking to the creepy spa caretakers. Our paladin starts questioning their use of decor, thinking it is a little off. Our bard dismisses the whole thing. Our warlock begins to question too. The caretakers describe being one with nature and point to decorations out in the back of the inn. Then my half-orc fighter tries to persuade one of the caretakers to take a walk and show explain to me what they mean. The DM asks me to make a persuasion roll.

Scenario three: Our group is speaking with an incredibly scary night hag trying to barter the freedom of three dryads we know she has captured. Our paladin, who just can't let the dryads suffer, starts trying to make a deal. During that time the hag tells us she had "saved" the dryads from the City of Brass, where they would have been a delicacy to the efreet guards. My half-orc warrior begins to weave a tale about how my aunt used to talk of such a place, and that he thinks the hag had been going there illegally. Hence, we might use it against her if she is not careful. The DM asks me to roll a deception check. (I fail miserably by the way.)

In each of these, we are not plotting who has the highest number or advantage. We are roleplaying, and sometimes we try things that require the DM to ask for a roll. Outside of carefully plotted plans (and even those go awry), our group roleplays their characters, and then we either: A) ask if we can roll or B) get told to roll. During RP (charisma-based skills) it is much more likely to be B.

So are all your RP moments planned out where you always have the best person for the task at hand? I am confused. (Thank you for the clarification.)

I enforce language and use language proficiency levels, skill challenges, and faction attitudes.

Minigiant DM: Anyone speak Orc at a B or higher?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No, it's not. It is only correct if your campaign makes it correct.

Our warlock has, under no possible way, outshined any of the martials. In our last campaign, our rogue outshined everyone with a few exceptions, such as our bard during specific scenarios.

This is such a false statement. I can't think of a 5e campaign I have played in (and I have played in many with many different people) where the wizard or warlock were OP compared to the martials.

Ah, the old "it doesn't happen at my table, therefore it cannot happen at any meaningful proportion of tables" argument. Always good to see that one still alive and kicking after all these years. Really raises the emotional temperature of the thread.

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?”

Then the game should not lie to you by telling you these things are pillars when they emphatically are not.

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”.

It is not my local experience.

It is over 90% of the games I've applied to play. Because I essentially never play in person, almost always online.

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

Then you are failing to use it creatively. It is niche. It does require other factors in play. But it is not exclusively a last resort.

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.

I sincerely hope you only mean that as "higher than 1st," which...yes, I never denied that, and don't see how that is in any way an issue. And which of these will be taken as attacks? Suggestion doesn't work that way. Enhance ability isn't even an attack, it's a buff you put on an ally. Detect thoughts only does that if you specifically try to probe deeper. Surface thoughts ("what is most on its mind in that moment") can be read without any hostility; it only upsets people if you force them to make the Wis save. The text even explicitly says you can push a creature's surface thoughts in an intended direction (i.e. get it to think about things you want it to think about) through your words and actions.

Irrelevant.

Uh, how exactly? Because your whole point was that Fighters could be good at

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

That's not what I said. At all. It is very frustrating to me to have my words twisted in this way.

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.

....no, absolutely not. Or, if you prefer, bringing nothing at all to the table for essential aspects of play IS a penalty.

A fairy chess piece that cannot move at all is broken.

What

What do you mean, "what"? It's literally in the OP. Do I need to quote the text itself? It's right there!

It's also not a wizard spell, but that's a different issue.

As of Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, it is in fact a Wizard spell.

 

[Oofta]

That's the same problem.


Never said the game is trash

I said that the game is dishonest and doesn't tell you what the space assumptions around the gameplay is and how you can change them and what the effects if you changing them is.

The poster child of fantasy RPGs sucks people into the game telling them that they can do certain things but doesn't support the mechanically. And then doesn't inform DMs that it doesn't support these things mechanically and how to adjust the game in order to support those things mechanically.

I mean the game didn't even support rapier users or light armor warriors into 2000.

The game is "dishonest" (I'm not even sure what that means), that fighters drool while wizards rule, on and on and on and on. To me? That's saying the game is trash.

 

[Scott Christian]

Ah, the old "it doesn't happen at my table, therefore it cannot happen at any meaningful proportion of tables" argument. Always good to see that one still alive and kicking after all these years. Really raises the emotional temperature of the thread.

I am glad you read the post, especially the part where I said this:

I would just ask that you look at your quote and think if it is actually a class-balance problem or a DM problem. It can be a problem for you and your table without actually being a problem with the design or ruleset of the game.

 

[Oofta]

...

As of Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, it is in fact a Wizard spell.

Fair enough, I was going by DDB. Doesn't change the fact that it is a support spell that can be cast on anyone in the party, including the fighter.