Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MostlyHarmless42" data-source="post: 7281489" data-attributes="member: 6845520">And I would argue that those unaccounted factors are more important that you realize. I will agree that we can definitely do a ranking, just that much of what the original post casts aside is very important. I would argue, for example, that the setting and type of game are by far the most important factors as to which classes perform better, and that several classes have in build "fluff" that cannot be cast aside, of have abilities that in one person's hands are absolutely terrible, but in another's are very powerful. Want an example of this? Thieves Cant. In the hands of a skilled rogue (and admittedly lenient DM) you could literally use it to destroy a campaign. Would most use it in such a way? No. But it could be done.Slight hyperbole aside, we run into a definitional issue the original post does not address: what is "good"? Are we defining it as broadest applicable functionality? We do we define as functional? The player having fun? The character being superior to all others? The ability requiring a munchkined/min maxed character in order to be deemed good? What about abilities like the paladin oaths? Are they considered crunch or fluff? What about patrons or dieties? What about alignments, party compositions, encounters, etc?What reports? I'll concede some subclasses function better in certain games (whispers bard), but as far as I'm aware, short of ranger and *maybe* sorcerer, pretty much every class functions just fine in nearly any sort of game. What matters far more is genre conventions, setting stuff, and alignments/party social relations (i.e. a CE Minion Necromancer probably won't work with a Vengeance Paladin who focuses on slaying undead with a passion no matter which class is deemed "better" and neither character will fit well in a game about saving a town from dragon cultists and their dragon master.And I'll refrain from making assumptions such as this, nor do I assume that one forum website known for having a disproportionate number of power gamers and munchkins is representative of the larger D&D community. What I do however not like, is the idea of spreading misleading information to potential new players that certain things "don't matter" when they might to certain DM'S or gaming groups. Who says that flexibility is always considered stronger? Isn't the entire *point* of subclasses to help specialize your character? To say nothing of the issue that everyone rolling generalists often ends up with a dysfunctional group of "Lone Wolves" who tread on each others toes and don't allow others a chance to have a spotlight in a game. The game is a cooperative experience and any survey needs to consider this.What would be a far better thing to do would be to try to identify types of games, situations, and group setups where each class, race, background, and subclass not only performs well, but also fits the game, in order to help new players roll characters that will allow the maximum fun for both themselves and their gaming groups, rather than rank them as "best to worst".On these points we actually agree. I just am pointing out that we cannot disregard roleplaying, fluff, and settings, ad that context matters.</blockquote>

Verification