Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9068983" data-attributes="member: 6790260">No.I am saying, "There are many Fighters on DDB" is not the same as "People absolutely love the Fighter and every single element and aspect of how it was designed."That is part of why I am motivated to speak, yes. It is not the argument, however, which is that none the following statements are logically equivalent, and none of them can be simply substituted for one another:There are many Fighter characters on DDB.The Fighter class is the most well-liked class in 5e.The Fighter class would be hated if anything whatsoever were changed about its design.The first of these three statements is inarguable from the data. The other two are not. Yet people have repeatedly treated these statements as though they are logically equivalent, and that is incorrect.Incorrect. If we actually got a real, properly designed survey, meaning one actually designed by someone with training in the field of survey design, it would be quite possible to investigate how people feel about different aspects and what their level of satisfaction is with implementation vs thematics. I am saying that people make their choices completely orthogonally to design quality or power unless those things are so hideously out of alignment that it simply cannot be ignored, whether by being much too great or much too small. That is absolutely a falsifiable claim.Yes...and why is it popular, even when most folks agree the design really is bad (e.g. 3e, which literally not one person has thus far come along to dispute)? Why has every single version of the Fighter been among the most widely-used classes in D&D, no matter what edition you consider? (It is possible one of the early editions breaks this pattern, I haven't actually seen data about them. But for all WotC editions it is true. Fighter is always in the top 3 and usually #1.)There could be some complex reason involving the evolution of game design or what have you, but Occam's razor tells us to keep it simple. The simple explanation is that people will choose to play Fighters regardless of quality or power. That the reason it remains one of the most widely played classes regardless of the rules it uses is that the rules it uses aren't why people choose to play it in the first place. Thus, even if they ARE popular, it isn't because of their design. It's because of their theme.But note the difference between "the rules aren't why people choose to play it" and "the rules are irrelevant to the people who play it." The latter is again non-equivalent to the former, because it makes the incorrect assumption that if people play something they must be absolutely, blissfully happy with 100% of its rules content. That is generally going to be a false assumption.It would be equally false to argue that the implementation is absolutely hated and endured solely with clenched teeth simply to get at that sweet sweet Fighter theme. Instead, I am saying that the implementation is imperfect and could be better. Which, at the very least, the playtest has shown that that is completely true. They have changed parts of the Fighter, and yet miraculously people have not instantly hated it and rejected it wholesale.Hence, if you're going to argue the Fighter is absolute perfection exactly the way it is and could not bear even the tiniest change, you're going to need to bring much more to the table than "a lot of them have been created on DDB."</blockquote>

Verification