Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wyckedemus" data-source="post: 6309986" data-attributes="member: 1079">I love ya Morrus, but you seem to be taking his statement that the 5E fighter is less effective and efficient as a fact. That is what I'm concerned about. Misinformation. His research does not in any way prove that claim. The only thing his research shows is a variance in &quot;BAB&quot; between editions. The only statement that can be made is &quot;The 5E fighter's &quot;base attack bonus&quot; is lower than previous editions.&quot; (Which has little to do with actual effectiveness. Those different editions have too many other variables that are built in.) But that also isn't what he's saying. He's saying the 5E fighter is overall significantly less effective than all other versions of the fighter. Maybe he's not intending to call the 5E fighter worse than all other editions, but that is how it comes off to me. Because I cannot *fathom* how he can get that conclusion from that one axis of data. tl;dr: I'm not saying that &quot;the fighter's effectiveness is inflammatory&quot;. I'm not saying that I don't find the research and chart interesting. I'm saying that I'm frustrated that the author is using that research as evidence to make the claim that the 5E fighter is less effective (i.e. worse) than previous fighters. Which is either a) an erroneous and misspoken conclusion based on incomplete evidence; or b) an intended misuse of the evidence to convince others that it is true. Either way, I don't want people accepting that conclusion as fact. Because it isn't one.... in my opinion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wyckedemus, post: 6309986, member: 1079"] I love ya Morrus, but you seem to be taking his statement that the 5E fighter is less effective and efficient as a fact. That is what I'm concerned about. Misinformation. His research does not in any way prove that claim. The only thing his research shows is a variance in "BAB" between editions. The only statement that can be made is "The 5E fighter's "base attack bonus" is lower than previous editions." (Which has little to do with actual effectiveness. Those different editions have too many other variables that are built in.) But that also isn't what he's saying. He's saying the 5E fighter is overall significantly less effective than all other versions of the fighter. Maybe he's not intending to call the 5E fighter worse than all other editions, but that is how it comes off to me. Because I cannot *fathom* how he can get that conclusion from that one axis of data. tl;dr: I'm not saying that "the fighter's effectiveness is inflammatory". I'm not saying that I don't find the research and chart interesting. I'm saying that I'm frustrated that the author is using that research as evidence to make the claim that the 5E fighter is less effective (i.e. worse) than previous fighters. Which is either a) an erroneous and misspoken conclusion based on incomplete evidence; or b) an intended misuse of the evidence to convince others that it is true. Either way, I don't want people accepting that conclusion as fact. Because it isn't one. ... in my opinion. [/QUOTE]

Verification