D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[tetrasodium]

Again, the low AC characters still get attacked. They still get hit. The reason is... (wait for it)

Because the situation is dynamic. The goblins that were hiding in the wagon that the wizard was checking out jumped out. Same with the exploration pillar, because I assume not everyone just stands there in the field while the wizard looks at the wagon's wheels. The fighter might be looking for tracks. The ranger might be in the grass staring out into the field. The bard might be pissing behind the tree. Whatever they do, they do it at the same time unless they say they don't. Then the DM might have some roll, and some might not. The fighter might make a nature or investigation check. The ranger might make a perception. The bard no check. The wizard might just interact with the scene. Hence, a dynamic scene. Not a static scene.

The same is true for the social pillar. They all interact (hopefully), and then the DM determines who, if anyone, needs to roll.

Happening to get attacked is not an "again", it's a misunderstanding or misrepresenting of commonly accepted l roles in video & ttrpg gaming. A player trying to play the role of "tank" runs out and puts themselves in situations where they are actively trying to be attacked.

 

[Scott Christian]

The other players.

If your character fails a certain check a lot that they don't have a good bonus for, the other players will discourage them from rolling that stat if possible.

OR like in combat... everyone dies due to constant failure.

What's baffling to me is some of you seem to have never heard "X is your job." in D&D.

X is your job is baked into your class. Sit there and watch or sit there and be quiet is not the job of an adventurer; someone who explores, or someone who is actively investigating something. In fact, their job description is the exact opposite.

The two are not unlinked. And when someone is a screwup who keeps getting all of you into lethal trouble (as messing up social rolls may do) they need to learn that it's dangerous and the rest of their party needs to learn that they are dangerous.

This is a flaw in D&D.

Most social encounters are not lethal situations. Most are gathering information, swaying some NPC to help, getting a better price for equipment, trying to get a little more gold out of someone hiring you, convincing a cleric to bring your companion back from the dead, telling the guard you need to see a noble, entertaining the crowd at a bar, persuading a group to be brave, wooing an NPC, asking the ship's captain to take a different route, etc.
Are there some that might lead to a fight. Sure. Most - no.

Happening to get attacked is not an "again", it's a misunderstanding or misrepresenting of commonly accepted l roles in video & ttrpg gaming. A player trying to play the role of "tank" runs out and puts themselves in situations where they are actively trying to be attacked.

That is exactly right. And yet, the warlock still participates in combat, still gets targeted by ranged attackers. Still gets targeted by spells. Still gets in melee combat. And still, sometimes, goes last in initiative. And yet, they still participate - in all those aspects of the game. Just like the barbarian should participate in the social and exploration pillar of the game - in all of its aspects.

 

[Minigiant]

X is your job is baked into your class. Sit there and watch or sit there and be quiet is not the job of an adventurer; someone who explores, or someone who is actively investigating something. In fact, their job description is the exact opposite.

I didn't the design the classes. Wizard of the coasted. And it was them designing by looking at their surveys where all the grognards voted out giving every class strengths in every pillar that caused this mess.

Yes. A vocal and large portion of fans voted for this mess that created this 60 page thread. They voted for bad design then didn't even play the game.

Which all goes back to the crab bucket.

 

[tetrasodium]

X is your job is baked into your class. Sit there and watch or sit there and be quiet is not the job of an adventurer; someone who explores, or someone who is actively investigating something. In fact, their job description is the exact opposite.

Most social encounters are not lethal situations. Most are gathering information, swaying some NPC to help, getting a better price for equipment, trying to get a little more gold out of someone hiring you, convincing a cleric to bring your companion back from the dead, telling the guard you need to see a noble, entertaining the crowd at a bar, persuading a group to be brave, wooing an NPC, asking the ship's captain to take a different route, etc.
Are there some that might lead to a fight. Sure. Most - no.

That is exactly right. And yet, the warlock still participates in combat, still gets targeted by ranged attackers. Still gets targeted by spells. Still gets in melee combat. And still, sometimes, goes last in initiative. And yet, they still participate - in all those aspects of the game. Just like the barbarian should participate in the social and exploration pillar of the game - in all of its aspects.

The 5e warlock is a class that embodies the pinnacle of why "dating the gm" is a trope and packet 7 warlock makes that clearer than ever. It has nothing to do with the post you quoted because we were talking about a playerA trying to take someone else's role they built their PC for while playerA went minmaxing for some other role at the expense of being awful the role playerA are trying to take.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Again... so they aren't allowed to roleplay lest they reduce their chance of success.

Well, honestly, if I had a team member who was good at other things but keep getting us in trouble in conversations by putting his foot in it, I'd likely tell them to shut up or get out in character, so doing it OOC hardly seems beyond the pale. The only reason this is routinely put up with is PC Glow in the first place.

 

[Scribe]

I didn't the design the classes. Wizard of the coasted. And it was them designing by looking at their surveys where all the grognards voted out giving every class strengths in every pillar that caused this mess.

Yes. A vocal and large portion of fans voted for this mess that created this 60 page thread. They voted for bad design then didn't even play the game.

Which all goes back to the crab bucket.

I'm sitting here rubbing my temples, thinking I must clearly not understand.

Are you saying that you feel every class, should have strength in every pillar at a baseline? Ignoring the fact that the classes with issue specific to this (and all the other) threads have these issues because.

1. They are focused on a single thing. (Fighter - Combat)
2. Having nothing in their class design that really impacts the other pillars, its just the nature of their primary Stat and/or Spells? (Warlock/Sorc or Wizard)

 

[Scott Christian]

Well, we are at an impasse. I clearly do not understand.

I guess a player whose personality is gregarious always has to play a high charisma character then. This must be true because the opposite holds true. A player who is an introvert and shy and quiet clearly cannot be the party's face. It would mean they themselves have to do all the social pillar talking, you know, since everyone else has to sit there and be quiet - because the party face has the best chance of "winning."

I would love to see a small script of how this works. But I fear, if I do see it, it will only raise more questions.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm sitting here rubbing my temples, thinking I must clearly not understand.

Are you saying that you feel every class, should have strength in every pillar at a baseline? Ignoring the fact that the classes with issue specific to this (and all the other) threads have these issues because

YES!​

Or there should be core variant class features that gives them baseline strength in every pillar.

OR there should be official guidance on how to put every class into a pillar they are weak in specifically.

Waiting for someone to write a blog or post a video should not be the default of the game. All parts of the cooperative game should cooperative mostly from the books.

WOTC allowing the garage doors to remove social or exploration aspects out of certain classes because the grogs had narrow views of them and preferred a specific playstyle was a big hindrance in fifth edition.

Even if Wizards listen to the grogs they should have put in specific guidance and rules on how to involve other classes into social and expiration play in the DMG specifically for those classes.

Did D&D community is diverse. 5th edition was not designed for a diverse community.

 

[Oofta]

I'm sitting here rubbing my temples, thinking I must clearly not understand.

Are you saying that you feel every class, should have strength in every pillar at a baseline? Ignoring the fact that the classes with issue specific to this (and all the other) threads have these issues because.

1. They are focused on a single thing. (Fighter - Combat)
2. Having nothing in their class design that really impacts the other pillars, its just the nature of their primary Stat and/or Spells? (Warlock/Sorc or Wizard)

The stance is that someone with a 14 charisma (easily doable for a fighter if the player cares) and proficiency will never want to participate in a social encounter because the DM might call for a check. Seems like there's always a charisma based class in the group at the very least if not a bard specialized in the appropriate skill. Other, non-charisma-based checks never affect the target DC, nor does the content of what the PC says, as far as I can tell.

Throw in house rules like mentioned up thread somewhere that a failed persuasion check automatically makes the NPC hostile and I can see why people wouldn't participate. I think all of this adds up to poor DMing that doesn't align with the advice in the DMG* so of course only the people with the best chance to succeed speak up.

*STANDARD DISCLAIMER: the DMG should be improved. Maybe if it was people would actually read it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm sitting here rubbing my temples, thinking I must clearly not understand.

Are you saying that you feel every class, should have strength in every pillar at a baseline? Ignoring the fact that the classes with issue specific to this (and all the other) threads have these issues because.

I am certainly saying that, yes. It can be low strength, but it should still offer something meaningful and distinctive.

To use the loose point-buy analogy, with 5.0, there are classes that have effectively 0 points spent in non-combat stuff, and it's not the case that every character gets 20 points to spread across three categories (combat, social, exploring.) Fighters, purely from the class, not counting things everyone gets (like getting two skills, since everyone gets at least two skills from class) get 9/10 in combat and 0/10 in both of the other two categories. Paladins also get 9/10 in combat, and 4/10 in both of the other two. Wizards can choose to be like 1/10 in combat if they want, but they can easily be 7/10 and 9/10 in social AND 9/10 in exploring.

On top of all the zero-point benefits of having four baseline skills, a Background, a race, and DM fiat support, aka things every character can access equally. The only things Fighter (currently) provides are native access to Perception, inarguably one of the best skills, and getting one bonus ASI at 6th and 14th level. Given the importance of stats early on, especially for characters near-guaranteed to be going into melee, that's a pretty slim benefit.

DM fiat and "player improvisation" don't fix the problem because having fancy-shmancy spells doesn't prevent you from improvising; in fact, it makes improvisation nigh-infinitely easier and more effective, and gives you more tools for persuading the DM that your ideas make sense. Everyone getting four skills (with a few getting more) doesn't shift the bar one iota, because that's a universal thing, everyone can do that. Every character has a race and a background, so again those do nothing but shift the starting line of the race, they don't change the speed of the cars.

1. They are focused on a single thing. (Fighter - Combat)

Yes. I am saying (and maybe Minigiant is too) that that level of crippling over-specialization is unwise design, counter to the explicit, openly-described intent and goals of the designers.

2. Having nothing in their class design that really impacts the other pillars, its just the nature of their primary Stat and/or Spells? (Warlock/Sorc or Wizard)

Spells are a class feature. Particularly for Warlock and Wizard! And guess what? Sorcerer is one of the few spellcasters I would want changed!

(Technically speaking, Sorcerer also has metamagic, and Tasha's gave it Magical Guidance, which ain't much, but it's something.)

Throw in house rules like mentioned up thread somewhere that a failed persuasion check automatically makes the NPC hostile and I can see why people wouldn't participate. I think all of this adds up to poor DMing that doesn't align with the advice in the DMG* so of course only the people with the best chance to succeed speak up.

Even what advice I've actually seen from the DMG really isn't good on that front (recognizing your disclaimer, I won't speak on that specifically any further.)

I've been strongly considering writing, and then thoroughly trimming down, an essay thread about the extremely severe problem of perverse incentives and how perilously easy it is for DMs to think they are doing something good while actually causing a great deal of damage to their game(s).