L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
Same with races.
If a race is important because of its flavor, how much more important it is to get its mechanics right.
If players want to play a High Elf that as a Wizard, make sure that this Elf culture can be an excellent − mechanically optimal − Wizard.
And so on.
I would argue that it is far more important to ensure that whatever flavor you want to play, the mechanics are good enough to succeed. When something must be optimized to be able to succeed, you remove the option to make other choices.
Personally, there's never going to be a one-to-one match since they weren't written with D&D in mind obviously. If a character is complex and interesting enough, you can get entirely different "perfect matches" depending on what aspects you take as most important to the character. As with any good fiction, different people will see different aspects as fundamental to a main character.
So, there are limitations to the data. No one is saying that it is the law, or the truth. But it is informative (if not dispositive).
The reason why it has credibility is because the data (revealed preferences) happens to closely match the survey results that have been released by WoTC.
And you might note that your specific anecdotal criticisms, which would indicate that Barbarian and Fighters would be underrepresented, while Sorcerers would be overrepresented, are not matched by the data.
While it is good to be cautious with all data (lies, damn lies, and statistics), I have found the more common problem in life is that people reject out of hand any data that does not already prove what they know to be true.
TLDR; some skepticism is always warranted, but given that your specific criticisms are, in fact, not born out in this data set and given that it happens to match what WoTC has already released, it would seem that while caution and further study is warranted, rejection is not.
It seems to me, the popular classes, races, and combos, are dominated by players who choose for the flavor of the archetype, and generally ignore mechanics.
If a class is important because of its flavor, how much more important it is to make sure its mechanics are excellent!
The dude had a holy sword, and "The hands of a king are the hands of as healer." That's totally paladin with healing magic, sorry, I'm going to flat out disagree with you here...
Your argument is nothing more than confirmation bias.
Aragorn is defined by his healing hands, you know. Supernatural abilities innate to the heirs of Numoir is actually a whole thing. That's actually very central to his identity. He also got spirits on his side, and used magical scrying orbs in a direct challenge against the Dark Lord. He's pretty darn magical for Middle Earth's standards.
You're pretty much just revising any warrior type into Fighter, by creating unrealistic definitions of other classes and leaving Fighter without its own, and not bothering to give an explanation why anyone should be one, just assuming they are by default. That's BS. I mean, hells, your defense of Wu Xia is "they use weapons!" So can monks!
Hercules is renowned for his excessive strength and training in the wilderness by wrestling animals. Fighters in 5e are known for their weaponry training and specializations and techniques. Hercules has more in common with the barbarian than the fighter class. None of the legends of Hercules fit with how a Fighter acts. Trying to call Hercules a fighter is very strained.
This argument is basically boiling down to just "any warrior defaults to Fighter if it doesn't fit a narrow definition." And that's something I call BS on.
That's kind of how you're defining it, though. Strong/tough? You're a Barbarian. Magical items/boons from background? You're a Paladin/Ranger. Asian martial-artist? Monk. If a Fighter is generally defined as a "Warrior who doesn't have any kind of supernatural/magical aid or items or distinguishing exploration/social/cultural tricks" then yeah, you're going to have a very restricted list of "Fighters" both within and without.