D&D General Data from a million DnDBeyond character sheets?

[EzekielRaiden]

Right. They seem to be adding just a little bit to the fighter without even a hint or UA indication of a rewrite. I mean, there are a lot of cultural influences on what people might play. There are so many archetypes of what a fantasy character can be now, from Harry Potter's wizard to many action shows having characters run around beating people up with their fists even if they don't have some of the traditional trappings of a monk.


So this boils down to: "I don't like the way the class is implemented so it should be completely revised and anyone who says differently is wrong."

It'd be nice if you actually responded to anything I said, rather than being condescending and "quoting" me on something I never said.

 

[Oofta]

It'd be nice if you actually responded to anything I said, rather than being condescending and "quoting" me on something I never said.

I don't know what other conclusion to come to other than you simply don't like the fight class structure. It's th class most likely to be played yet you insist its fundamentally flawed.

I, and I believe from the evidence that we have, that millions of people disagree.

 

[Incenjucar]

Unless this information comes with a survey for each user, we don't know anything about anyone's opinion of any given class, nor how opinions of a given class affect a user's use of the tool.

Reading our own opinions into the data is not productive.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Unless this information comes with a survey for each user, we don't know anything about anyone's opinion of any given class, nor how opinions of a given class affect a user's use of the tool.

Reading our own opinions into the data is not productive.

Exactly.

The Fighter is commonly used.

We know nothing whatsoever about whether it is well-liked based on this data. Assertions to the contrary are simply false.

 

[ECMO3]

Then we cannot, from "popular," reason that things are well-liked. Just that they are common.

Yes we can because even though they are universally available, they are also other options available and they chose fighter over those options and that is after the choice to play the game at all.

With that being the case, I find it reasonable to believe that the fighter mechanics are more "well-liked" than mechanics of other universally available classes.

Okay, but what does "many" mean? If a thousand people like it, is that "popular" when millions of people now play D&D?

Yes clearly.

If a million people play it without regard for its mechanics, can we reason from its "popularity" to say that therefore people absolutely adore its mechanics and changing them in even the slightest degree is super ultra mega bad never ever ever do that?

I don't reason that from this survey. I reason that from many games I have played in, my own feelings and many other players I have played with.

This forum is the ONLY place I have interacted with any people at all who have expressed dislike for the fighter class mechanics and even here I am not sure it is a majority that dislike it.

For that reason, I believe that the vast majority of players do in fact like the mechanics of the fighter class as they currently are.

Fighters have been commonly used in every edition. Yet, as I have said--and again, not one person has disagreed with me--the 3e Fighter, which was extremely commonly used, is widely regarded even by 3e fans as a poorly-designed class. Hence, poor design is not enough to make people avoid the Fighter. (Edit: Okay, I hadn't seen it yet, but Lanefan has slightly disputed it.)

I did not play 3E enough to have a valid opinion on the subject.

I will say from personal experience, many people disagree with you about the 5E fighter though.

Then prove it

You want me to prove that I believe something? What can I offer you as proof of my beliefs - will a video of me swearing on a bible suffice?

I have been careful to explicitly state my opinions as opinions. Meanwhile you state things as facts, or at least definitive statements and offer no proof at all.

Before you ask about proof of my beliefs, you should provide some proof of what you are suggesting?

 

[Incenjucar]

I would say that, just in case the number of fighter builds is indicative of overwhelming popularity, WotC should be sure to avoid invalidating those builds, but it doesn't indicate they shouldn't also offer additional options. When in doubt, "yes, and".

 

[Hussar]

Of course there's evidence. Its just not conclusive evidence, and can be argued the opposite. Don't confused "inconclusive" with "none".

And I disagree with your conclusion in any case; the simplest explanation is they aren't bad enough for most people to put them off. That's worlds away from "fine".

At the end of the day though there’s no difference between fine and not bad enough. They both get the job done and that’s what we see with fighters.

Couple that with the very entrenched position that the fight must never be changed and you have a recipe for changes to pretty much never happen.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Where? What evidence do you have other than your personal opinion that the fighter is broadly disliked?

Define "broadly". Otherwise any answer I give is either responding to something I didn't say or subject to the goalposts being moved on me.
Also, which "fighter" are we talking about? I'm not limiting my comments (or even especially applying them to) the 5e version.

 

[Thomas Shey]

At the end of the day though there’s no difference between fine and not bad enough. They both get the job done and that’s what we see with fighters.

I think there is. "Fine" may indicate that a change is just as liable to make things worse than otherwise. "Bad enough" suggests it would be likely to go the other way.

(Just in case someone again reads into my statement more than I'm saying, I am not saying there's any conclusive evidence in either direction).

Couple that with the very entrenched position that the fight must never be changed and you have a recipe for changes to pretty much never happen.

I think that has much more to do with it than your prior statement.

 

[darjr]

I dunno.

Among this data someone is making a choice. Might be arbitrary but I doubt it.