D&D 5E (2024) How useful/interesting is something like this?

FrogReaver · 2026-03-31T09:27:00+0100

Paul Farquhar · 2026-03-31T09:49:44+0100

Speaking as a scientist, you really need to include your methodology, not just your results.

FrogReaver · 2026-03-31T09:50:56+0100

Paul Farquhar said:
Speaking as a scientist, you really need to include your methodology, not just your results.

It's an example, not a final product. Methodology was intentionally left out as the particular methodology (still a work in progress) doesn't determine whether a graphical picture like that is useful/interesting to you.

Paul Farquhar · 2026-03-31T09:55:12+0100

FrogReaver said:
It's an example, not a final product. Methodology was intentionally left out as the particular methodology (still a work in progress) doesn't determine whether a graphical picture like that is useful/interesting to you.

Then my feedback is, it's usefulness depends on how scientific it is. Treated as a scientific paper, it could be very interesting/useful. Without that, it's just random dots and lines.

FrogReaver · 2026-03-31T09:59:51+0100

Paul Farquhar said:
Then my feedback is, it's usefulness depends on how scientific it is. Treated as a scientific paper, it could be very interesting/useful. Without that, it's just random dots and lines.

What exactly do you mean by 'how scientific it is' and 'treated as a scientific paper'?

Paul Farquhar · 2026-03-31T10:03:56+0100

FrogReaver said:
What exactly do you mean by 'how scientific it is' and 'treated as a scientific paper'?

It's a very big subject, you would need to read up on it if you are not a trained scientist. But the most important thing is clarity about how you derived your results. Note that you don't actually need to justify your results being meaningful or significant, you can leave that up to the readers to discuss.

FrogReaver · 2026-03-31T10:07:17+0100

Paul Farquhar said:
It's a very big subject, you would need to read up on it if you are not a trained scientist. But the most important thing is clarity about how you derived your results. Note that you don't actually need to justify your results being meaningful or significant, you can leave that up to the readers to discuss.

Then no worries. I assure you that the actual production will contain clarity on how everything is being calculated. I kind of thought that went without saying for something like this. But I'm just as happy to make that explicit.

jmartkdr2 · 2026-03-31T16:42:05+0100

I'm not sure this captures the way damage plays out well - rogues having big spike damage despite having low-ish average damage is important to note. That's on top of the fact that this obviously doesn't account for non-combat features (not that that's missing information)

But within narrower sets (ie comparing rogue subclasses) it can be useful to adjudicate whether an option is off the main curve.

bedir than · 2026-03-31T16:56:39+0100

I'm interested in seeing the story, which I guess means this teaser is interesting

aco175 · 2026-03-31T18:36:09+0100

It is kind of cool, but I do not know what 'extended frontier' is or if it is assumed a certain level for the numbers to mean much. I'm also not sure what it is trying to say, ie if one is better than the other.