D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Crimson Longinus]

They can't be mechanically the same, of course, they can't even do just the same things about as well, because other support-capable classes are amped up so much from 4e.

So? Even more reason to make it a fighter subclass so that they can kick ass to compensate.

In 4e it was a class feature called Quary that did extra dice when you hit. In 5e, it's a spell, Hunter's Quary, that adds extra dice when you hit.

Hunter's mark. Sure. A spell you can take if you want.

Which is sad, yes. Instead, so the fighter isn't just going "I attack" every round, it has Action Surge, which lets it attack a second time in one of those rounds.

Right. But it still a fighter, even it lack the role defining feature of 5e. Because 5e isn't about such rigid roles.

5e was downright enthusiastic about providing mechanics to explicitly represent "Inspiration" Bards got it, an RP-carrot system got it, and there was a temp-hp feat that let anyone say they were an Inspiring Leader. Then there's another temp-hp Rally, and a token healing PDK feature that doesn't work on allies that have been dropped.
No matter how much of that stuff you may take, when Bob drops and the poor sap who took 'em all is your only support PC, Bob II will be rolled next week.

I mean someone could stabilise Bob with a healing kit or a potion, but more importantly the warlord should have mechanics that decrease the chances of Bob dropping in the first place. It can be about damage mitigation rather than healing, which makes it play differently. And that to me sounds more interesting than a refluffed cleric.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yes, and they don’t break anything. PHB 2024 is shaping up to allow commanders strike with no bonus action cost and rogues can SA on reactions. The designers aren’t worried about it.

You can get as close as anyone could expect from a new edition.

The people who yell that it has to be a direct port can be ignored. It’s an irrational position based in stubborn refusal to let go of the edition war.

The Battlemaster is a commonly played subclass.

I plan on ignoring the must be exact types. I like the 2E domains and AD&D multiclassing for example but don't expect them in the book.

 

[Zardnaar]

Magical healing is way too powerful in combat to my mind. Very tired of whack-a-mole, and ranged healing in general.

Easy fix is 0hp gain exhaustion level.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Right. But it still a fighter, even it lack the role defining feature of 5e. Because 5e isn't about such rigid roles.

Nod. 5e does not constrain classes as much by role as prior eds did, even tho 4e was the only one to formally name and assign roles, Fighters have always been front-line melee types, Clerics have always been healers, and Thieves have always been.... killed ... I'm sorry. They did get a little better in 3e when they became Rogues, skill monkeys, and spike damage dealers, then Strikers in 4e, and not entirely different in 5e, which is probably part of their problem.

That said, the 5e Fighter is a pretty clearly a Striker, a slightly durable one, a Tank, perhaps, but it's biggest features are Action Surge, Extra Attack, Extra Attack, and, most of all, Extra Attack ('cause nobody else gets three of 'em), like the Slayer in Essentials, the Leap Attack build in 3e, and the dual-wielding weapon-specialist in 2e/late 1e AD&D. Which is amusing, since, for most of it's history, the common wisdom was that it was a frontliner there to protect the party - something that, very late, around 3e, some fans started pointing out it had no way of actually doing.

Similarly, the Cleric is not 'bound by it's 4e role as a Leader (healer/buffer/action-granter/de-buffer) it can also deal damage in melee using Spirit Guardians, which also slows down enemies, a mild defendery effect, lock down enemies with control spells, blast 'em, and solve all sorts of out of combat problems with the right spell at the right time, since they cast spontaneously, now (just like everyone else who has slots).

hm. I said "similarly" didn't I? But that's not similar, at all, is it? The Fighter is not constrained by it's traditional 'defender' role, it's got the Striker role, instead, but the Cleric is not constrained by it's traditional healer role, it does all kind or stuff... oh, it still turns undead, I almost forgot. Oh, the Bard and Druid, also, not constrained in that same sense.

I mean, we're right back in the crab bucket, aren't we?

 

[Neonchameleon]

@Neonchameleon you simply seem to dislike with certain basic design assumptions of 5e and like the 4e way better. Which is fine, but then why not just play 4e?

I don't think it is realistic to expect the basic design of 5e to change, so the class in the way you want will never happen.

I'm actually the person who advocates for some of the fundamental design principles of 5e. In particular the "Happy Meal Menu" character design where lots of things gets some support and classes are polished by survey. If I'm playing with a group and I don't know what their tastes are then 5e is an excellent place to start. If I do know the group's taste I'm unlikely to pick 5e. So for example I have two groups right now - one of which I'm running my 4e retroclone with and the other I've just finished an Apocalypse World campaign with. I started playing with both groups with 5e and wouldn't run 4e (or my version) with the AW group or AW with the 4e group.

This doesn't mean I don't think 5e couldn't be vastly improved - and actually including a warlord would do so for the reasons I've mentioned including opening up game styles. However the "Happy meal menu" means that there is likely to be at least one menu item for every player even if some concepts that could be there (like the warlord) aren't. And the warlord is a big one that would open things up. However where I consider 5e genuinely bad is on the DM side of the screen. And I've enough experience to fill in the gaps there because I've learned from a variety of games that are genuinely good to run like 4e and Apocalypse World, while 5e gives me nothing.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In the current playtest a level 15 battlemaster fighter can once per turn use a maneuver for free by rolling a d8 instead of a d10 or d12.

Just scale that down.

d6 at level 7 and d4 at level 2.

I suggested this for the BM as it is. If I were to base a warlord on the BM, I’d 100% use it for them.

Huh….

I think I figured out how to make my Monk rewrite sing…

Spoiler

Okay kinda, but basically make the martial arts (renamed focus) die part of all ki (renamed focus) features, and all the main ones can be done without spending focus, but you use one step lower die if you do.

Also change martial arts to allow you to simply add the die + wisdom mod to damage on a hit 1/round, no action cost. Maybe start at just the die and add Wis at level 5.

Obv that isn’t the whole rewrite, but I think it’s what I’ve been missing to make it go beyond “it works I guess” to “this is great”.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I plan on ignoring the must be exact types. I like the 2E domains and AD&D multiclassing for example but don't expect them in the book.

There's a difference between "Must be exact" and "Must be exact if you want to actually say it's that". The Battlemaster is a good subclass (within the bounds of 5e fighters, meaning for about the first 10 levels or so). Visceral, versatile, and kinaesthetic. I'm certainly not advocating it gets dropped. It just isn't a warlord and when people want me to pretend it is I'm going to point out why it fails. I don't need apples to be oranges but don't give me an apple and call it an orange because it has a slightly orange tinted skin.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Magical healing is way too powerful in combat to my mind. Very tired of whack-a-mole, and ranged healing in general.

That's funny, I've often heard the opposite opinion. Yet, it also referenced whack-a-mole.
the point being that whack-a-mole was a symptom of healing being inadequate, so the only use for it was to bring an ally back into the initiative ranking, hopefully, so he could act before being knocked back to 0 again... and that only sorta OK because of the relative action-efficiency of healing word.

Easy fix is 0hp gain exhaustion level.

Whoah. As above, healing is not efficient when used to try to keep ahead of monster damage, especially not the convenient up-and-at'em Healing Word. Any caster afflicted with Cure..Wounds on it's list is going to have to weigh the value of his slots and actions in most combats, vs the lives of his melee allies. (likely result - well, they can always roll up a new character)

@Neonchameleon you simply seem to dislike with certain basic design assumptions of 5e

There are some things to dislike. There are for every edition, really. 4e was better balanced, 5e better evokes the classic game of the TSR era (I'm not talking to you, Micah ... OK, better than 4e, anyway?). I do like running/playing a better-balanced game and I played a lot of 4e when it was the current ed, and have run a 4e campaign for over a decade (the only edition I've ran a longer campaign in than I did AD&D).
But 5e, in 2014, it was the hope of D&D, and by extension the hobby, much like 3.0 in 1999, there was a fear, perhaps not very credible even at the time, that D&D would be kaput if 5e didn't make it. So, I did participate quite enthusiastically in the Next playtest (which was discouraging, since I found so little enthusiasm for it from players, and even those that participated, didn't often take the surveys), and I ran intro games at Encounters (again, some discouraging experiences there, because Greenest), and local conventions... and then, y'know, Stranger Things, come-back, 5e took off, it clearly didn't need my help, and my health took a turn, so I took a break... still hopeful the Big Tent would come thru, and there'd be a Warlord and psionics &c in some future supplement .... that break got rather long... there was some more stuff, eventually, an Artificer was the only actual class and... not my favorite class, but, not exciting... and... what...Tortles? Ironically some winged races (something I'd wanted in 1980, lol, and 'winged folk' were a thing not long after - that no DM I found ever allowed.) IDK.. 5e had essentially turned around and left me with newer things (and the older things I'd had all along), it wasn't 4e, it wasn't a new edition that moved on from 4e (nor even 3e), and it wasn't my beloved AD&D (1e, thank you).

From my pov, 5e has two things going for it. It works well with my improvisational style of DMing, and, if I play, the Druid, my favorite class in 1e, is worthy, again, for the first time (even 2e dissapointed me on that count), Wizards are also tollerable to play. So, yeah, I'd be pleased if there was more on the player side. I don't feel any need to take away the things people have that they like, not at all.

 

[Minigiant]

There's a difference between "Must be exact" and "Must be exact if you want to actually say it's that". The Battlemaster is a good subclass (within the bounds of 5e fighters, meaning for about the first 10 levels or so). Visceral, versatile, and kinaesthetic. I'm certainly not advocating it gets dropped. It just isn't a warlord and when people want me to pretend it is I'm going to point out why it fails. I don't need apples to be oranges but don't give me an apple and call it an orange because it has a slightly orange tinted skin.

Yeah.

Typically when it comes to archetype replication, the core aspects desired are either

1. Frequency: You do the THING a lot. The warlock can do Eldritch Blast a lot. The rogue can Sneak Attack almost every turn.
2. Power: You can do the THING and it is impactful. A sorcerer might not be able to use Megamagic a lot but when they do, the encounter can shift.
3. Options. You have a library of the many of the THINGS in the archetype. The Wizard. Full Stop.

The issue with the Battlemaster is that it doesn't do any off these.

1. Frequency: Too Few Dice
2. Power: Maneuvers dont scale
3. Options. Your library is too small.

I mean

WOTC could make $$$$$ with a martial class with core Superiority Dice, Maneuvers, and Advanced Maneuvers. It could cover 4e Warlords, 3e Duelists, 2e Weapon Specialists, and the Brawler Jeremy Crawford wants so much.

And anyone who says they did the research and it won't make money is crazy.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Another aspect of the crab bucket is threatening expulsion from the bucket in order to enforce compliance. That's why D&D players love to tell people to get out of the space and play another game.

The bad argumentation of 'you want a complete copy of X' instead of listening to what people are actually describing and understanding there's more to the concept than the superficial rough sketch it has been flanderized to is new an exciting though.