Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8448635" data-attributes="member: 71699">Exactly, that's why I think it is best to think of this as the baseline or reference-structure. And - crediting other respondents - it is very important to call out that there is diversity. Think about it like this<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">The tiers are meaningful in 5E. Tier 2 characters will see a step (or steppy) increase in mechanical power over tier 1 characters. And tier 3 over tier 2, etc.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">The simplest place that is visible is in fighter extra attack and warlock eldritch blast.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Each class has been consciously designed to have its own approach, but the approaches can be simplified to - A) I attack many times, B) I attack fewer times but do more damage, C) I attack and also defend. Fighters are A. Rogues are B. Rangers are C. Note that 'defend' is where you see even more diversity because it often spills over into explore (e.g. ability to hide).</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">This simplifies the task of design as it means a designer knows the approach a class is using, and they know how much power to build into its features at each level. You can observe this most easily I think in the designs for sub-classes such as fey wanderer, if you compare its features to other more straightforward classes.</li>
</ol>The designers introduce enormous variation as offsets from those backbones, but the intents always ring through. Look at every ranger 11th level feature from PHB, XGE and TCoE and compare those to every fighter 11th level feature. Cost the barbarian d12 HD in ASIs, and consider that against the value of spell slots and spell levels. You will see underlying skeleton bringing cohesion everywhere!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8448635, member: 71699"] Exactly, that's why I think it is best to think of this as the baseline or reference-structure. And - crediting other respondents - it is very important to call out that there is diversity. Think about it like this [LIST=1] [*][B]The tiers are [I]meaningful [/I]in 5E.[/B] Tier 2 characters will see a step (or steppy) increase in mechanical power over tier 1 characters. And tier 3 over tier 2, etc. [*]The simplest place that is visible is in fighter extra attack and warlock eldritch blast. [*]Each class has been consciously designed to have its own approach, but the approaches can be simplified to - A) I attack many times, B) I attack fewer times but do more damage, C) I attack and also defend. Fighters are A. Rogues are B. Rangers are C. Note that 'defend' is where you see even more diversity because it often spills over into explore (e.g. ability to hide). [*]This simplifies the task of design as it means a designer knows the approach a class is using, and they know how much power to build into its features at each level. You can observe this most easily I think in the designs for sub-classes such as fey wanderer, if you compare its features to other more straightforward classes. [/LIST] The designers introduce enormous variation as offsets from those backbones, but the intents always ring through. Look at every ranger 11th level feature from PHB, XGE and TCoE and compare those to every fighter 11th level feature. Cost the barbarian d12 HD in ASIs, and consider that against the value of spell slots and spell levels. You will see underlying skeleton bringing cohesion everywhere! [/QUOTE]

Verification