D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Scott Christian]

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

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

Excellent. I am glad you found your solution to the problem that fighters can't be beneficial during RP moments. I mean, factions can dictate how others treat you during an entire campaign, right?

 

[Minigiant]

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.

I explained.

It has nothing to do with Wizards.

It's fully on the idea that the fighter is completely a combat class with no social and exploration strength. But the game suggests that you're fighter can have social or exploration strength.

D&D attracts people telling them they could be a noble charismatic knight with long flowing hair fighting evil for their lord and people. But the game doesn't mechanically support that The DM has to change the game to support that.

And if someone says "OK then. The game doesn't properly support the character I want. Can I have a custom class that supports the game I want?" the game officially say "No". You have to rely on third parties who may or may not create what you want and whose product may or may not be allowed in the game.

It's also beastmasters, nonmagical rangers, summoners, necromancers, MONKS, half orcs, no blaster sorcerers, assassins, dragonborn, etc etc

 

[Oofta]

I explained.

It has nothing to do with Wizards.

It's fully on the idea that the fighter is completely a combat class with no social and exploration strength. But the game suggests that you're fighter can have social or exploration strength.

Which I disagree with. They are best at fighting, when it comes to out-of-combat fall behind rogues and bards because rogues and bards are supposed to be better since they are not as effective at combat. They're a bit more flexible than monks and barbarians (although monks can focus on dex and wisdom). The other classes? Just depends on where the player wanted to focus.

They do not have to be lumps that sit around and grunt at the walls when out of combat. Although, of course that's also a completely viable option depending on the character concept.

D&D attracts people telling them they could be a noble charismatic knight with long flowing hair fighting evil for their lord and people. But the game doesn't mechanically support that The DM has to change the game to support that.

It does? Where? In any case, you can easily have a 14 charisma without sacrificing anything (assuming point buy). Heck, if it's really important you can start with a 16. Nothing is stopping you except extreme min-maxing.

And if someone says "OK then. The game doesn't properly support the character I want. Can I have a custom class that supports the game I want?" the game officially say "No". You have to rely on third parties who may or may not create what you want and whose product may or may not be allowed in the game.

It's also beastmasters, nonmagical rangers, summoners, necromancers, MONKS, half orcs, no blaster sorcerers, assassins, dragonborn, etc etc

If there was a widespread desire for and a gaping hole in the archetypes you can play, perhaps there would be another class. I don't see either, and apparently neither does WOTC. There's always 3PP if you want something else in your game. Or heck, just play a different game and stop dissing on D&D for a change.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

That is a “local experience”. It just means the experience of you and the people you regularly interact with in a given context.

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

If you don’t mean that every class has to keep up with all others in all pillars to be a valid class, then your statement is nonsensical.

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.

That isn’t analogous. The fighter doesn’t exist, the character exists. The character can contribute. The fact the base class doesn’t add to that is irrelevant.

 

[Scott Christian]

I explained.

It has nothing to do with Wizards.

It's fully on the idea that the fighter is completely a combat class with no social and exploration strength. But the game suggests that you're fighter can have social or exploration strength.

D&D attracts people telling them they could be a noble charismatic knight with long flowing hair fighting evil for their lord and people. But the game doesn't mechanically support that The DM has to change the game to support that.

And if someone says "OK then. The game doesn't properly support the character I want. Can I have a custom class that supports the game I want?" the game officially say "No". You have to rely on third parties who may or may not create what you want and whose product may or may not be allowed in the game.

It's also beastmasters, nonmagical rangers, summoners, necromancers, MONKS, half orcs, no blaster sorcerers, assassins, dragonborn, etc etc

So your issue is that the classes that you want are:

• not there during your play experiences
• not strong enough in all three pillars
• not in existence
• not correctly aligned with their race? (I see races in there and am unsure what to make of it.)

Are these four things an accurate picture, or am I missing something?

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

TBF, one of the major, talked up, goals of the Next playtest was the Big Tent. 5e was meant to be D&D for everyone who ever loved D&D, and for new players, too.

You're right, there are games for every taste, now - and, there were then, too. 3.5 fans had PF1, old school fans had long had Hackmaster and the OSR was underway, and D&D fans with the temerity to want balance still had 4e.
Really, the hobby has been niche AF since the 90s.
But, for whatever reason, 11 years ago, it was absolutely vital that the Next D&D be for absolutely everyone.

 

[Scott Christian]

It does? Where? In any case, you can easily have a 14 charisma without sacrificing anything (assuming point buy). Heck, if it's really important you can start with a 16. Nothing is stopping you except extreme min-maxing.

Oh boy, I've travelled down this road before, and let me tell you - it's curvy with cliffs.

Of course, you are one million percent correct in your observation, but there is about to be a +5% or +10% hail storm that shuts the road down.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Seriously. 4e is "the good edition", without any indication that you're describing your opinion? You expect that to go unchallenged?

No edition of D&D is an objectively good game. 4e was the least imbalanced, with the narrowest martial/caster gap, easiest to DM (embarrassingly easy, I've always said), and so forth. Like 1e, it tried to be better.

dislike the implication that D&D 4E failed because it was balanced

4e might have survived longer, or at least not gotten the essentials treatment, were not for the edition warring against it, virtually all of wich could be viewed as objections to it being balanced. (More subjectively, to the way it was balanced, how not-D&D that felt.)

Never said the game is trash

More of a dumpster fire. Trash is just boring. Dumpster fires can be very entertaining - hard to look away from, even. Plus you can warm your hands over them.

Seriously, tho, D&D isn't perfect, it has had many, many flaws over the decades. But that can't stop us from having fun with it.

You can enjoy a less than perfect game, even a terrible game, you can like, even love it, in spite of its flaws. You can love it for its flaws. That's all subjective, yes, but it's all legitimate.

 

[Minigiant]

Excellent. I am glad you found your solution to the problem that fighters can't be beneficial during RP moments. I mean, factions can dictate how others treat you during an entire campaign, right?

Indeed. And I enforce language and language proficiency.

So a fighter with 8 Cha can easily be the only one who can talk to a person.

Which I disagree with. They are best at fighting, when it comes to out-of-combat fall behind rogues and bards because rogues and bards are supposed to be better since they are not as effective at combat. They're a bit more flexible than monks and barbarians (although monks can focus on dex and wisdom). The other classes? Just depends on where the player wanted to focus.

They do not have to be lumps that sit around and grunt at the walls when out of combat. Although, of course that's also a completely viable option depending on the character concept.

The point is this is a team game and the other members of the team can easily hog the spotlight in pillars of the game and the game mechanically encourages it.

It does? Where? In any case, you can easily have a 14 charisma without sacrificing anything (assuming point buy). Heck, if it's really important you can start with a 16. Nothing is stopping you except extreme min-maxing.

The settings. The Art. The diseigner's interviews. The suggested inspirational works.

I think I'm explaining it the wrong way.

The issue is Ability scores. and the d20.

Strength: Combat and Exploration
Dexterity: Combat and Exploration
Constitution: Combat and errr... most DM don't roll Con Exploration rolls. I do but I don't see it often from others.
Intelligence: Exploration
Wisdom: Social Exploration
Charisma: Social and Exploration


You can only put your 16 in one* of them. And as you level, you can only afford to level 1 score. Which means that you only can use you main score to 2 pillars at best. Which wouldn't be so bad if not for the ability modifiers being so low compared to a d20. You are encouraged to heavily focus on only that one leaving the rest to rot.

So you end up relying of class features. And class focus of the pillars are all over the place. And D&D doesn't tell you any of this, you have to figure it out.

You see D&D was orignally a gamewhere the only stats were Combat stats. The games changed. The stats didn't.

Many DMs figured out ways around this issues but none of that is in these books WOTC sold. Even WOTC say their DMG sucks.

 

[Scott Christian]

4e might have survived longer, or at least not gotten the essentials treatment, were not for the edition warring against it, virtually all of wich could be viewed as objections to it being balanced. (More subjectively, to the way it was balanced, how not-D&D that felt.)

This is an interesting insight into 4e. Thanks for sharing. On a side note, I always liked 4e, but it is true, it did not "feel" like D&D.