D&D 5E Can an elf rogue be a decent archer in (Basic) D&D 5th edition?

[I'm A Banana]

The ability to move more than your foe, to take advantage of cover and concealment and the ability to hide and move silently, these all are quantifiable things. You could calculate the percentages for how often it comes up in an average scenario (using a statistically relevant number of published scenarios or something), the average decrease in damage taken, or the average increase in damage done to the foe over time, and the ratios of damage done to damage received, etc..

This measurement is functionally kind of useless, though. With such stickiness and variation, there's nothing useful the average tells you about what is going to happen in any particular game. Your standard deviation is too extreme to make an average something very useful for measuring balance.

It probably has an effect at some tables some of the time, but that ain't something you want to use as the basis for fundamental design decisions. Take it into account, don't ignore it, but treat it as a key element of relative balance? This way lies "you can't sneak attack undead or constructs"-style decisions.

 

[Mistwell]

This measurement is functionally kind of useless, though. With such stickiness and variation, there's nothing useful the average tells you about what is going to happen in any particular game. Your standard deviation is too extreme to make an average something very useful for measuring balance.

It probably has an effect at some tables some of the time, but that ain't something you want to use as the basis for fundamental design decisions. Take it into account, don't ignore it, but treat it as a key element of relative balance? This way lies "you can't sneak attack undead or constructs"-style decisions.

You let me know when someone here describes it as a key element of relative balance. All we're talking about is what's right there in the thread title.

 

[The Hitcher]

This measurement is functionally kind of useless, though. With such stickiness and variation, there's nothing useful the average tells you about what is going to happen in any particular game. Your standard deviation is too extreme to make an average something very useful for measuring balance.

It probably has an effect at some tables some of the time, but that ain't something you want to use as the basis for fundamental design decisions. Take it into account, don't ignore it, but treat it as a key element of relative balance? This way lies "you can't sneak attack undead or constructs"-style decisions.

No measurement is useful in isolation for measuring balance. The only way to balance a game is get it feeling right at the table, and the only way to do that is through sufficient playtesting. Period.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It is perfectly acceptable to say "I might not know what impact this has on average damage, but I know, and everyone who plays the game knows, it has a huge impact on the game quite often". That's not an unreasonable thing to do.

The unreasonable thing to do is to pretend that, because you're having a hard time pinning a number on an ability, that no claims should be made about that thing concerning the game.

Fair enough, but I then you have to accept criticism of your claims, which is something I've been loathe to give, because it will get bogged down into he said/she said. If you want me to get into that, I will. Do you?

Well said, Mistwell. Stats only tell you what they tell you, and nothing that they don't. As the expression goes: "There's three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics".

If you think that applies to this argument, you should stay very far away from game design. Very very far.

No measurement is useful in isolation for measuring balance. The only way to balance a game is get it feeling right at the table, and the only way to do that is through sufficient playtesting. Period.

Talking of "damned lies", this is a really misleading claim. No measurements here have been used in isolation, they've been contextualized and used with other measurements. A measurement in isolation would be something like "Rogues do +4d6 SA at level X, that's overpowered!" - something I see pretty regularly from people who hate maths, I note.

Also, you are straight-up wrong. You will never get good balance by playtesting if you don't have good numbers and a good idea of how to put together the maths behind a system. Period.

 

[The Hitcher]

If you think that applies to this argument, you should stay very far away from game design. Very very far.

Haha, well it must be a terrible misunderstanding that allows me to run a videogame company and teach courses on Advanced Game Design!

Of course I'm exaggerating some of my points for effect, but trying to talk game design to you feels like trying to carry on a conversation while trapped inside a Gelatinous Cube. It's a shame you're not one of my students, because I'd really like to write "can't see forest for trees" on your report card.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Haha, well it must be a terrible misunderstanding that allows me to run a videogame company and teach courses on Advanced Game Design!

Of course I'm exaggerating some of my points for effect, but trying to talk game design to you feels kind of like trying to carry on a conversation while trapped inside a Gelatinous Cube. It's a shame you're not one of my students, because I'd really like to write "can't see forest for trees" on your report card.

Then perhaps your problem here is that you see anyone who disagrees with you as "students" and in need of a "lesson", when you should be more open to learning yourself. Exaggerating for effect as frequently as you seem to be doing leads to you advocating some fairly ridiculous and extreme positions. I'd write "Does not actually listen to others or attempt to honestly understand their positions, thinks 'winning' the argument and looking 'smart' is more important than discussing the issues involved" on your report card, frankly. When I was in college, a very long time ago, I did have professors who had that attitude. It's safe to say that, learned as they were, they were not great educators. Since then, I've come across employees with a similar attitude. Again, suffice to say they are not great at learning.

Further, and I have no idea if you are one of them, there are tons of videogame designers who need, very desperately need, to understand that numbers do matter, and you're not going to get anywhere until they're right! They're particularly common in the RPG field, and super-common in indie RPGs.

 

[The Hitcher]

Don't worry, I'm under no illusions that anyone is ever going to win this argument. This is a D&D forum, after all. Your very blinkered view of game design irritates me, that's all.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Don't worry, I'm under no illusions that anyone is ever going to win this argument. This is a D&D forum, after all. Your very blinkered view of game design irritates me, that's all.

I don't actually have a "blinkered view". The issue here is that you are being completely reductionist towards my views, and attempting to tell me what I think, like I was a dim student, rather than attempting to understand my position as that of intelligent peer.

You were explicitly reductionist earlier, when you attempted to claim I held a position I explicitly did not by reducing it and ignoring all the subtleties and nuance, and now you're claiming I'm "blinkered", because you're still ignoring the subtleties, again! For example, I didn't say, despite your claims, that unquantifiable factors were irrelevant - I merely said, and I think this is a MILD position, that one should avoid basing strong claims on them. I am largely avoiding them because discussions around them are hard to get anywhere with, because they can easily devolve into "Is so!" vs "Is not!", even with reasonable people involved.

I mean, if you think I'm so unreasonable, it's odd that I've conceded so many positions and points, isn't it? Mistwell has made a number of interesting points which I can't really argue with or even agree with!

 

[Shayuri]

*blinks and scratches head, then squints at the title of the thread*

...so the answer, if I read correctly...is yes.

Cool. I'll have to try one.

 

[zoroaster100]

Thanks for all the responses and discussion in response to my inquiry. Based on the discussion my player has decided to go ahead and create his elf rogue archer. He hopes to have fun with the character's skills and yet be able to contribute to combat, which it sounds like he will. In any case, this will be kind of a test of the final 5e rules for us using the Starter Box so if he decides the character is not as fun as he'd hoped, he can change characters when we start the full campaign after the Player's Handbook comes out.