Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The Crab Bucket Fallacy
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MuhVerisimilitude" data-source="post: 9133601" data-attributes="member: 7042567"><p>I've been planning on making this thread for a while ever since I binged martial/caster balance discussions over a few weeks and read about 300 pages of discussion on the subject. I made a few notes but then put it on hold while doing other things, and now that they came out with the latest play test and nerfed the bear-barian I thought this was appropriate. I post it here rather than in the OneD&D subforum because I believe this is more general and is not primarily about the nerf.</p><p></p><p>I want to introduce an argument that I saw multiple times in many of these balance discussions, and I name it the <strong>Crab Bucket Fallacy</strong>. It goes something like this.</p><p></p><p><em>Arnold: Fighters are fine as they are. I've never had a problem with having high level Fighters and Wizards in my party.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>Bob: Cool, I want to have a real on and off the field martial leader. Here's a draft of the Warlord -- it gets all these powerful cool abilities but I think it's fine because they aren't really better than the Wizard's spells at those levels.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>Arnold: Whoa, that's way overpowered. The Fighter doesn't get anything near that.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>Bob: I'm not comparing it to the Fighter, I'm comparing it to the Wizard which you said was fine???</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>Arnold: The Fighter is fine, but no one will play a Fighter if you add this Warlord.</em></p><p></p><p>As you can see, a proposed martial class buff is rejected because it is compared to other martials (which are underpowered) and not against casters (which are overpowered). It is much like a crab bucket. No crab can escape the bucket, because the crabs already in it will pull any would-be escapees back into the pit. It's easy to relate this to the barbarian nerf in the play test. The bear totem barbarian was nerfed because it was the best of the barbarian totems so it had to be dragged down to the level of lesser totems (rather than by allowing the other totems to be buffed to an equivalent level).</p><p></p><p>A number of variations were seen but the form was pretty much the same. <em>You can't buff martial class X because then it will be overpowered compared to martial class Y.</em></p><p></p><p>This is obviously a fallacy because you are comparing not against the global optimum (the wizard) but against some local optimum that is not guaranteed to be the global one.</p><p></p><p>I've also seen a related argument that goes something like this: You can't buff the fighter with utility features because the monk is like a weaker fighter without utility features, and if you give more utility to the fighter, the monk will have nothing.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MuhVerisimilitude, post: 9133601, member: 7042567"] I've been planning on making this thread for a while ever since I binged martial/caster balance discussions over a few weeks and read about 300 pages of discussion on the subject. I made a few notes but then put it on hold while doing other things, and now that they came out with the latest play test and nerfed the bear-barian I thought this was appropriate. I post it here rather than in the OneD&D subforum because I believe this is more general and is not primarily about the nerf. I want to introduce an argument that I saw multiple times in many of these balance discussions, and I name it the [B]Crab Bucket Fallacy[/B]. It goes something like this. [I]Arnold: Fighters are fine as they are. I've never had a problem with having high level Fighters and Wizards in my party. Bob: Cool, I want to have a real on and off the field martial leader. Here's a draft of the Warlord -- it gets all these powerful cool abilities but I think it's fine because they aren't really better than the Wizard's spells at those levels. Arnold: Whoa, that's way overpowered. The Fighter doesn't get anything near that. Bob: I'm not comparing it to the Fighter, I'm comparing it to the Wizard which you said was fine??? Arnold: The Fighter is fine, but no one will play a Fighter if you add this Warlord.[/I] As you can see, a proposed martial class buff is rejected because it is compared to other martials (which are underpowered) and not against casters (which are overpowered). It is much like a crab bucket. No crab can escape the bucket, because the crabs already in it will pull any would-be escapees back into the pit. It's easy to relate this to the barbarian nerf in the play test. The bear totem barbarian was nerfed because it was the best of the barbarian totems so it had to be dragged down to the level of lesser totems (rather than by allowing the other totems to be buffed to an equivalent level). A number of variations were seen but the form was pretty much the same. [I]You can't buff martial class X because then it will be overpowered compared to martial class Y.[/I] This is obviously a fallacy because you are comparing not against the global optimum (the wizard) but against some local optimum that is not guaranteed to be the global one. I've also seen a related argument that goes something like this: You can't buff the fighter with utility features because the monk is like a weaker fighter without utility features, and if you give more utility to the fighter, the monk will have nothing. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The Crab Bucket Fallacy
Top