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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7533172" data-attributes="member: 6795602">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.  I disagree.  You can even see this in most newer guides where they rate abilities dual colored showing that sometimes its better than othertimes.  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?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?</blockquote>

Verification