Asisreo
Patron Badass
When we analyze classes and compare them to one another, we often make assumptions because we can't mathematically model everything to the minute detail. For small, isolated features, I think there's potential for sloppy assumptions, but when we make sweeping generalizations based on multiple assumptions, I think we should handle them with better scrutiny.
One such example I have is the assumption of Feats and Multiclassing. We assume feats and multiclassing is a valid assumption, and there's a few reasons why, but when we really think about them, there's some discrepancies like how they're likely undercooked and that's why they favor some classes better than others.
Another assumption is how often or little a character gets hit. There's ideas like "ranged characters rarely get targeted, melee characters always get targeted." But we're making assumptions on a specific enemy type that might not be consistent with play.
We don't have to be bogged down by these examples, if you have an assumption you see shared when discussing the game that you feel should be scrutinized more in-depth, you're more than welcome to add to this thread.
One such example I have is the assumption of Feats and Multiclassing. We assume feats and multiclassing is a valid assumption, and there's a few reasons why, but when we really think about them, there's some discrepancies like how they're likely undercooked and that's why they favor some classes better than others.
Another assumption is how often or little a character gets hit. There's ideas like "ranged characters rarely get targeted, melee characters always get targeted." But we're making assumptions on a specific enemy type that might not be consistent with play.
We don't have to be bogged down by these examples, if you have an assumption you see shared when discussing the game that you feel should be scrutinized more in-depth, you're more than welcome to add to this thread.