D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Oofta]

That is incorrect.

Warlords aren't in 5e because WOTC took a stance that new classes would only be created if the setting demands it.
They attempted to fold it into the fighter, hoping 4e fans would be happy. But like I said way in the beginning, there wasn''t enough design space in the battlemaster to please anyone.

That's why only artificers are official. Psions was coming with Dark Sun but WOTC dropped Dark Sun so they stopped with the difficult development of it.

Do you have any references at all to back this up?

 

[Oofta]

5e didn't really deliver on that goal, anyway. Fans of psionics & warlords, obviously, are still outside the tent, and in a way, 3e fans have had standing tent space only, since that ed's premier innovations, feats & modular MCing, are both optional (they'll be1st class tentizens come 5e.2024, it seems), and I don't have to tell you how some TSR fans feel.
But the expectation has been established (For that matter there may be a perception that since 5e has been commercially successful, it must have succeeded at the Big Tent goal.)

The real success of 5e in that Tent sense isn't pleasing everyone, it's just not offending anyone enough to start Edition War II. That's all it needs to avoid damaging the IP, and keep leveraging its only-TTRPG-the-mainstream-knows-exists status. That probably doesn't require an ever bigger tent - or a worse (or better) game.

(thus, of course, this thread is an exercise in futility).
(sorry, original poster)

You can't please everyone. On the other hand they seem to have created a game that has seen double digit growth for nearly a decade, far exceeding expectations. There's a lot of reasons for that but it does seem to show that it works for a lot if people. By sheer numbers it works for more people than played any previous WOTC edition at least.

The tent can't work for everyone, no game can ever work for absolutely everyone.

 

[Minigiant]

Do you have any references at all to back this up?

Crawford mentioned it. Long ago. Hard to find the quote now.

Nerd Immersion interviewed him and he said that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That is incorrect.

Warlords aren't in 5e because WOTC took a stance that new classes would only be created if the setting demands it.

I think the issue is more why was it the only full class in a past PH1 to be excluded from the 5e PH? WotCs Surveys indicated the Warlord was more popular than classes that did get in - including my favorite 1e & 5e class, the Druid. It's not that there weren't enough players who liked it.

Like I said, above, it may be more a matter of 5e striving to be inoffensive than inclusive. The Warlord was a prime target of Edition Warring. Including it in a viable form could easily be seen as too risky, too "controversial."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

I understand that, as far as you're concerned, this is a significant fix, but for me it really isn't. The fact that the buff isn't exclusive to the Wizard doesn't make it better. Self-casting is, of course, an issue. But the alternative is that the Fighter is now dependent on the Wizard's benevolent aid. Even if it is genuinely meant as kindness, it can be very grating. I don't know if you've ever been in an experience in your life where you had to depend on the kindness/charity of others in order to get by, but it sucks. Having even the ghost of that feeling in a TTRPG...is a very sour experience.

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

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, it isn't. Because I have repeatedly rejected that claim, thoroughly and extensively.

What I am saying is, you must have SOMETHING that comes from your class that is actually a serious, meaningful contribution. The playtest Fighter finally has the barest, slimmest bit of actual benefit here. It's still weak as hell--roughly 4/day super-Guidance by sacrificing your self-heals--but it's now more than "you literally get no tools from being a Fighter that aren't tools everyone else gets."

I have repatedly and explicitly rejected the claim that the Fighter must be exactly as good as, say, a Bard or Wizard or Sorcerer. You are injecting this into what I said with no basis.

But if something is a "pillar" of the game, that means it's a vital, essential part of play. Class is the lion's share of a character's tools for doing anything. No class should be designed to bring no tools to the table for the pillars. The zero point for a character's tools to do stuff in the social and exploration pillars are four skills (two from class, two from background) and, usually, a couple of other miscellaneous proficiencies (usually instruments or games), and sometimes a language.

A class must go beyond the zero point. It doesn't have to be that far. It certainly doesn't need to be at the level of Wizard/Sorc, Cleric, Druid, or Bard spells. Tactical Mind falls short, but not by a huge margin; the issues are largely its few uses and requirement that you sacrifice critical healing resources to power it. Imagine if Wizards had to sacrifice hit dice to cast spells! Wizards would be howling for blood. By comparison, the old Remarkable Athlete was dramatically worse than Tactical Mind, and the Battlemaster getting one niche tool proficiency was likewise inadequate. Reliable Talent, from the Rogue, is actually a very good class-derived tool for skill stuff; coupled with Expertise and the ways various subclasses contribute, Rogue is mostly fine on this front.

Spitballing a Fighter feature I would consider appropriate, with the caveat that this has not been tested, I cannot promise it would be balanced, I'm thinking of something like this:

Gritty Determination​

At 3rd level, your single-minded determination to see a task completed carries you to greater heights. You have a pool of Grit points, equal to your highest ability modifier (minimum 1) plus your Fighter level. Any time you make an ability check that isn't an Initiative check, before you roll, you may spend points from your Grit pool to increase the result on a one for one basis. You cannot add more than your proficiency bonus to any single roll. You can spend Grit points even when you have a feature, such as Expertise, which allows you to add twice your proficiency bonus. You regain any spent Grit points when you complete a long rest. At 7th level, you also regain any spent Grit points when you complete a short rest.​

Now, perhaps it should be limited to half your proficiency bonus, or have fewer points, or whatever else. As I said, it would need testing. But the core idea here is simple, and this is a straightforward, easy-to-use feature. You have to invest many levels into Fighter before you get the short-rest recharge, so there's little fear of a lame multiclass dip. It's generically useful; it applies in cases that nobody would get proficiency in, which gives it unique utility; it stacks with other buffs like Expertise, Bardic Inspiration, guidance, etc., so there's no worry about checking compatibility; and you spend the points before you roll, so there's no "oh, I rolled a 2, there's no point" issues that I know annoy some players.

I am confident some kind of ability like this, even if subject to some balance changes, would be perfectly functional on the Fighter. It would be unique, useful, distinctive, and fairly easy to use. And this ability, while quite useful, is certainly lower-power than being an actual spellcaster.

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.

Then why do classes even exist? Seriously. What do they do if they're literally not meant to give you the tools you use to contribute?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Then why do classes even exist?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I understand that premise. And, there is even something that can be said towards that. I remember in a thread not too long ago that I mentioned maybe a fighter can go above strength 20, perhaps to 30, to show this improvement. It's not something I think is needed, but for others, it seems like it might be a good house rule.
On the other hand, a fighter gets 2 extra ability score improvements. In my opinion, if you are using feats, this can absolutely lead to that improvement some players talk about.

The Fighter is only 1 ASI ahead starting at 6th level, and only gets the second additional ASI at 14th--a level most characters never reach.

Feats aren't bad. But Wizards are SAD, while Fighters--especially ones who want to not suck at their prime function, but still get some skill stuff in--are very MAD.

 

[Minigiant]

The Fighter is only 1 ASI ahead starting at 6th level, and only gets the second additional ASI at 14th--a level most characters never reach.

Feats aren't bad. But Wizards are SAD, while Fighters--especially ones who want to not suck at their prime function, but still get some skill stuff in--are very MAD.

The Big Dumb Idiot Fighter is SAD. Same with the Agile Dumb Idiot Fighter. Very strong.

The issue is playing a fighter who is anything more than a crayon eating damage machine. That's MAD. You lose significant power and are better off playing a Paladin Ranger,Warlock, Cleric, Bladesinger, or Swords Bard unless your DM adjusts the game.

The best at combat fighter licks walls.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

5e didn't really deliver on that goal, anyway. Fans of psionics & warlords, obviously, are still outside the tent, and in a way, 3e fans have had standing tent space only, since that ed's premier innovations, feats & modular MCing, are both optional (they'll be1st class tentizens come 5e.2024, it seems), and I don't have to tell you how some TSR fans feel.
But the expectation has been established (For that matter there may be a perception that since 5e has been commercially successful, it must have succeeded at the Big Tent goal.)

The real success of 5e in that Tent sense isn't pleasing everyone, it's just not offending anyone enough to start Edition War II. That's all it needs to avoid damaging the IP, and keep leveraging its only-TTRPG-the-mainstream-knows-exists status. That probably doesn't require an ever bigger tent - or a worse (or better) game.

(thus, of course, this thread is an exercise in futility).
(sorry, original poster)

I suspect you are right. I'm migrating away from the system myself, having conceded that this problem is unfixable because of WotC policy. The campaigns I'm playing in now are D&D 5e and PF2 with the latter one wrapping up (we're likely to start something else in PF2 after this AP is over) and PF2 handles this balance issue a lot better even though I have some issues with that game too.

 

[overgeeked]

It was definitely rushed into production, the entire power structure was never intended to be applied to every class.

Hmm…

Do you have any references at all to back this up?

Good question.