D&D 5E Less about the numbers and more about the concept: Judging classes in 5th edition.

[Corpsetaker]

Now this is my personal opinion and observation.

Something that I have noticed is when judging classes and their worth there is still the 4th edition mindset where it was more about the math than the concept. 5th edition doesn't come across as being about the math but more about the concept which is what my group and I are more about. I see people complaining about the PHB Ranger but my only complaint is that it's concept isn't up to par.

I know people are free to judge classes anyway they like, but when a system is designed around a certain perception of them is it right to judge them based around the math and say a particular class needs to be changed just because it doesn't meet that criteria?

 

[Nagol]

Yes, it is appropriate because if the maths fail that typically means one of two things: the rule set doesn't support the concept appropriately (the rule set implicitly or explicitly forsakes this concept) or the design is subpar (either too powerful or too weak) compared to the other implemented concepts.

Note this applies to all types of implemented concepts: classes, races, spells, equipment, creatures, downtime options, whatever.

 

[BoldItalic]

Different people play the game different ways. Some people treat it as a combat game with narrative flavour; other people more as a narrative game with occasional combat. Most of the classes work equally well either way around, but somehow Ranger has never quite come right in that way. WotC are still trying.

 

[TwoSix]

For some people, numbers mean things, the same way that words or images do. If a class concept is described one way, but the numbers paint a different picture, that's just as confusing as when the artwork doesn't match the verbal description.

 

[Sunseeker]

Numbers are numbers. Concepts are subject to opinions. You can think 10 is good and someone else can think 9 is good, but both will agree that 9 is 9 and 10 is 10. Beyond that, concepts based on flawed math are often flawed concepts.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Numbers are numbers. Concepts are subject to opinions. You can think 10 is good and someone else can think 9 is good, but both will agree that 9 is 9 and 10 is 10. Beyond that, concepts based on flawed math are often flawed concepts.

Seems like numbers are opinions too, in this context, because almost always, people using the numbers only use it in limited white room scenarios based off their opinions, and never seem to factor in how the actual game is actually played. I'm a software analyst in real life, and we have a saying, "Garbage in, garbage out." I.e., if you're entering in flawed data, your result is going to be flawed. That, combined with how everyone views the numbers with differing importance, and you have what others have said: Some people judge based on math, some based on feel, some based on narrative, etc. Neither is any more right than the other.

 

[Xeviat]

Design should start with a concept. But the numbers should support the concept.

The Toughness feat in 3E is a good example of this. The concept is your character is tougher. Who doesn't want to be tougher? I want to be tougher, so I take the Toughness feat. It makes me noticeably tougher at first level, even raising my fighter's HP by 25%!

Then I realize 4 levels later that I wasted a feat and my DM says I can't change the feat, so I let my fighter die and make Fighter 2.

Another example was some combination of the 3E Ranger, Two-Weapon Fighting, and the Weapon Finesse feat. On paper, this looked like it would be fine. The concept was sound. My player wanted to play a whirling dirvish like Drizzt, though he went with short swords because he was a wood elf and wielding machetes sounded cool.

And then the barbarian who put no feats into combat outshined him in every combat encounter.

The numbers need to back up the concept. Hyperbolically, the "You're Cool and the Best" feat makes you really cool and the very best, but without good rules behind it, it doesn't play out in play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Corpsetaker]

Yes, it is appropriate because if the maths fail that typically means one of two things: the rule set doesn't support the concept appropriately (the rule set implicitly or explicitly forsakes this concept) or the design is subpar (either too powerful or too weak) compared to the other implemented concepts.

Note this applies to all types of implemented concepts: classes, races, spells, equipment, creatures, downtime options, whatever.

Nobody said anything about balance. This is about judging classes based on the math.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Hyperbolically, the "You're Cool and the Best" feat makes you really cool and the very best

You aren't the best nor does the game imply that you are so where are you getting this?

 

[cmad1977]

The math is meaningless to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk