5e Character Guides - why rate all features?

[Dessert Nomad]

Archery is game changing in a way that the others aren't because it helps you go beyond your maximum attack modifier, and since a miss is no damage, that's amazing.

It doesn't help you if you're using a melee weapon or spell, so it's highly situational. Also defensive helps you go beyond your maximum armor class, and since a miss is no damage, that's amazing. So by your logic it should be sky blue, but isn't.

The Warlock's spellcasting is too limited at lower levels to be of as much value as regular casters, but their cantrip lets them be on par with Fighters, especially combined with their other spells and/or features.

A 1st level warlock gets to cast from 2 selected known spells six times per standard adventuring day. A 1st level caster from another class generally gets to prepare 4 spells, but can only cast two times per standard adventuring day. This argument that warlock spellcasting is 'too limited' at low levels is simply factually incorrect. And it's even more silly when 1/2 and 1/3 spell casters are in the mix.

The Paladin has some good spells, but the majority of them come online too late. Divine Smite, by comparison, can add a tonne of damage on a Crit, and you can wait until you get a crit to use it.

EK and AT spellcasting is as useful as the Paladin's, maybe slightly weaker offensively, but that's not their primary use.

But their spellcasting was ranked as 'game changing', while the Paladin's wasn't. For this argument to work, they'd need to be ranked below paladin's spellcasting. And, again, Divine Smite doesn't actually work without Paladin spellcasting to fuel it, so if Divine Smite is actually game changing, Paladin spellcasting is too, as you can't have DS without it.

Immunity to disease is an oddball, but is that all Divine Health does?

Yep. Still going to call it game-changing?

 

[FrogReaver]

So anyone have thoughts on what would be a better layout for guides?

I think they should be structured and written with the assumption that you are a single classed member of the class in question. Abilities that offer the player a choice should be rated amongst themselves. A decently detailed analysis on just how much better particular features are making you should also be done. There should be a lot of guide discussion on how to best utilize certain abilities.

At the end there should be a multiclassing section and it should cover important abilities you can take from other classes. It should tell give advice on when to take the multiclasses and the earlies levels certain ones should be done. It should tell you at what levels it could be viable and/or good to totally abandon this class in pursuit of another.

Ratings and exceptions would be a valid solution to giving multiclass advice, but it seems to fail in practice as ratings just aren't consistent between guides and even in the same guide. Instead stop worrying about ratings and give actual advice on how to use abilities (play mastery), how much they are improving your single classed member of class X (system mastery), and when and what you should consider multiclassing for.

 

[FrogReaver]

I can think of 2 reasons I haven't yet seen discussed (though it's a longish thread, could have easily missed something).

1. It can help with the flow of the guide to not have to shift between explanation and rating. One format makes it both easier to write and to read.

2. A better reason, at least for me: As the person who most often DMs, I like to know the relative power level/usefulness of abilities in relation to the other classes - especially by level: rating them helps.

For Example 6th level: the Paladin gets Aura of Protection one of the more game changing abilities, especially for that level. The Rogue gets more expertise, which is nice but not on the level of the paladin's ability. Rating those abilities can help me eyeball big changes, and can help the player eyeball big jumps in power too.

I don't think ratings actually help with #2. In a perfect world they might could, but as it stands they are too inconsistent between guides and in the same guide to really be of use on their own. The value also changes (like extra attack) depending on what class you have already taken and what multiclasses you plan on leveling.

As for #1, if ratings were useful then rating things and giving some explanation about the rating below or to the side of the rated item would be great and flow great. Flow is simply not a good counterpoint to substance. There tends to be way to many variables involved that determine whether something is good or not. Adventuring Day structure, whether your DM really kills PC's or if he always pulls punches, # of rests, #of and stakes in social and exploration Pillars, what enemies/monsters are found in a campaign, deadliness of encounters, # of foes in encounters, enemy "AI", sandbox or story adventure, what class levels you've already taken, etc.

The point is that abilities cannot be rated in isolation. Both character internal and external sources tend to shape just how good an ability is. It's impossible to give a global rating for an ability because of this. That makes the notion of using guides to compare abilities granted by different classes to be a fool's errand.

Even something as basic as heavy armor proficiency isn't universal in it's rating. It's not really useful for rogues or barbarians or monks, archer fighters, etc. If we can't even come up with a universal non-class dependent rating for heavy armor proficiency then there is no hope for ratings to be able to handle more complex abilities.

 

[Yunru]

I think they should be written exactly how the writer wants to write them, and respected for the effort put into writing it.

Not criticized by someone who's yet to make a solid point

 

[FrogReaver]

I think they should be written exactly how the writer wants to write them, and respected for the effort put into writing it.

Not criticized by someone who's yet to make a solid point

If they can't handle constructive criticism then they don't deserve respect.

 

[Yunru]

If they can't handle constructive criticism then they don't deserve respect.

Yeah, that's true. Of course the key word there is "constructive". Something this thread has proven to be anything but.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeah, that's true. Of course the key word there is "constructive". Something this thread has proven to be anything but.

That's cause certain guide writers will defend the status quo no matter what. It's impossible to offer suggestions when they can't even admit the way they are doing something is flawed.

 

[Yunru]

That's cause certain guide writers will defend the status quo no matter what. It's impossible to offer suggestions when they can't even admit the way they are doing something is flawed.

I believe you need some self-reflection if stubbornly defending a point is the problem.

 

[FrogReaver]

I believe you need some self-reflection if stubbornly defending a point is the problem.

It's not actually stubborn, it only seems stubborn when the same invalid counterpoint keeps on getting raised again and again.

 

[Yunru]

It's not actually stubborn, it only seems stubborn when the same invalid counterpoint keeps on getting raised again and again.

I rest my case.