5e Character Guides - why rate all features?

[FrogReaver]

I rest my case.

LOL. I thought about replying to your post before with exactly that but decided better of it.

 

[FrogReaver]

@Yunru do you plan on actually contributing to the thread? Or you going to keep on taking little ad hominem pot shots? Do you have anything more to say on the actual topic or is this change in discourse an indication that you are through with the topic?

 

[Dessert Nomad]

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

I think that color coding everything with inconsistent rules is the problem. Color rankings for things you select makes perfect sense - ranking the skills by how good they are for a typical build, or the abilities by which ones you want to pump or dump, or feats by which ones might work for you works well, and sometimes helps you spot something you might not have thought of (like crossbow mastery for a pure caster). The part where it gets confusing is attaching rankings to things that you don't actually pick in multiple different ways, because the ranking ends up not really conveying anything useful. For example no one is going to turn down Divine Health on a paladin, it's nice to have but is mostly flavor and you're not going to base a class or multiclassing decision on it. But a lot of guides like to rank it highly because it doesn't have any drawbacks.

Either not putting color rankings on every single line item, or coming up with a consistent rule for them would be much better.

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.

Yeah, heavy armor is a good example of something that never has a sensible rating. It's really good for people who dump dex and want extra protection, but it's mostly worthless for high AGI characters, counterproductive for stealthers, and requires spending singificant points to have the 13-15 STR needed to use it. It should really be ranked 'trap' or 'highly siutational' for multiclassing, and situational for single class (It's a worthless proficiency for dex fighters, for example), but in practice I've never seen a guide that gives it less than a 'great' rating.

And same with martial weapon proficiency, which is always ranked high in guides. There is only one class combo I can think of that cares about adding MWP for anything other than flavor, and that's a non-elf rogue sniper who wants to use longbow. Everyone else either doesn't regularly use weapons or already gets proficiencies in the weapons their stats support using. And if someone does want a martial weapon vs a simple weapon, it's actually only an average of 1 point of damage difference, which isn't really enough for a high rating. For multiclassing ranking it high is inaccurate and for single classing the ranking doesn't convey any useful information. On the flip side, simple weapon proficiency is often ranked bad even though there's nothing bad about it - what information does the typical red on a caster's SWP convey?

 

[Mort]

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.

Your argument applies to any ability - are you now saying that rating abilities in general, chosen or not, is a fools errand?

Because, I disagree (on both counts really). D&D has a predictable enough structure that a guide should be able to rank abilities of the same type (combat, social, exploration) across classes.

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.

A ranking only has to show how the ability applies to the class in question. Why would we care, when looking at the fighters guide, how that same ability is for a barbarian? We only care how good the ability is for that level for that class.

What does matter, and hopefully has some consistency is ratings between different class abilities. For example, is heavy armor proficiency [Edit: For the fighter] better, worse or the same as the barbarian's unarmored defense (or is the monk's unarmored defense better, worse, or the same as the barbarian's unarmored defense). There should be no reason that rankings are not consistent here, if they are not, they need to be improved.

 

[Mort]

Yeah, heavy armor is a good example of something that never has a sensible rating. It's really good for people who dump dex and want extra protection, but it's mostly worthless for high AGI characters, counterproductive for stealthers, and requires spending singificant points to have the 13-15 STR needed to use it. It should really be ranked 'trap' or 'highly siutational' for multiclassing, and situational for single class (It's a worthless proficiency for dex fighters, for example), but in practice I've never seen a guide that gives it less than a 'great' rating.

And same with martial weapon proficiency, which is always ranked high in guides. There is only one class combo I can think of that cares about adding MWP for anything other than flavor, and that's a non-elf rogue sniper who wants to use longbow. Everyone else either doesn't regularly use weapons or already gets proficiencies in the weapons their stats support using. And if someone does want a martial weapon vs a simple weapon, it's actually only an average of 1 point of damage difference, which isn't really enough for a high rating. For multiclassing ranking it high is inaccurate and for single classing the ranking doesn't convey any useful information. On the flip side, simple weapon proficiency is often ranked bad even though there's nothing bad about it - what information does the typical red on a caster's SWP convey?

I think, for both heavy armor proficiency and martial weapon proficiency, the guide drafters tend to fall into a bit of a trap. Both are "the best" of the available proficiencies of that type - and so they rate them highly. Unfortunately this discounts the analysis you mentioned - how good is the proficiency really?

 

[FrogReaver]

Your argument applies to any ability - are you now saying that rating abilities in general, chosen or not, is a fools errand?

I am saying that an ability rating needs context. The primary bit of context I propose is that ratings if done should suppose you are a single classed member of the class in question. The other factors I discussed if any really impact an ability should be discussed out from the ability in question.

However, once you realize you are rating abilities in the context of a single classed PC, then you realize that the ratings you are providing aren't going to be useful in a multiclassing discussion. In fact, other then just cause, there stops to be any reason for rating such intra class abilities. The only ones that actually need rated once you are doing this are the ones you get a choice about.

Explanations about the relative power abilities give you at certain levels is useful. Rating such abilities in this context as good or bad stops being helpful.

Because, I disagree (on both counts really). D&D has a predictable enough structure that a guide should be able to rank abilities of the same type (combat, social, exploration) across classes.

I disagree. You can even see this in most newer guides where they rate abilities dual colored showing that sometimes its better than othertimes.

A ranking only has to show how the ability applies to the class in question. Why would we care, when looking at the fighters guide, how that same ability is for a barbarian? We only care how good the ability is for that level for that class.

I agree we shouldn't. But one of the earliest arguments for rating every ability came from multiclassing. So this got talked about to counter that. More importantly if we are looking at fighter abilities and rating them just for the fighter, why do we need to rate every ability there? What use is it?

What does matter, and hopefully has some consistency is ratings between different class abilities. For example, is heavy armor proficiency better, worse or the same as the barbarian's unarmored defense (or is the monk's unarmored defense better, worse, or the same as the barbarian's unarmored defense). There should be no reason that rankings are not consistent here, if they are not, they need to be improved.

The point is that such rankings cannot be consistent. It's impossible for them to be so. The monks unarmored defense is bad for a number of classes. The barbarians is as well. Heavy armor as already discussed in other posts is bad for a number of classes. How can we rate these independently as if they work the same for every class?

 

[Mort]

The point is that such rankings cannot be consistent. It's impossible for them to be so. The monks unarmored defense is bad for a number of classes. The barbarians is as well. Heavy armor as already discussed in other posts is bad for a number of classes. How can we rate these independently as if they work the same for every class?

You don't need to rate how good the monk's unarmored defense is "for a number of classes," just how good it is for the monk. The fact that a monk gets it, and can't really do much about it is a factor - but it's still useful to know how good it is at a glance.

And that's really the crux. Sure, you can have a sentence or paragraph explaining the ability instead and that will serve. But ideally, someone should be able to glance at a guide and right away see the highs and lows of the class - that's best accomplished with a ratings system, even for the class's standard abilities.

 

[FrogReaver]

You don't need to rate how good the monk's unarmored defense is "for a number of classes," just how good it is for the monk. The fact that a monk gets it, and can't really do much about it is a factor - but it's still useful to know how good it is at a glance.

And that's really the crux. Sure, you can have a sentence or paragraph explaining the ability instead and that will serve. But ideally, someone should be able to glance at a guide and right away see the highs and lows of the class - that's best accomplished with a ratings system, even for the class's standard abilities.

Why do you need to know how good unarmored defense is at a glance? What decision is that information helping you make?

 

[Mort]

Why do you need to know how good unarmored defense is at a glance? What decision is that information helping you make?

It's always good to know how good a central feature of a class is. Or, as importantly, how good the guide creator thinks it is. It helps put the guide in context.

Knowing this before wading through a bunch of text is ideal.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's always good to know how good a central feature of a class is.

Why what does that help? Saying something is good and explaining it's good are two very different things. Your not explaining why it's good to do that. You just keep stating it is good.

Or, as importantly, how good the guide creator thinks it is. It helps put the guide in context.

Knowing this before wading through a bunch of text is ideal.

If I'm experienced player knowing how good a guide creator thinks the monks unarmored defense is may give me some insight into his thought process and or let me know if his assumptions on the game line up with mine. But if I'm already that advanced of a player a guide likely isn't very useful to me in the first place.

For players that are newer and can benefit a lot from guides, is that information useful at all?