D&D 5E Less about the numbers and more about the concept: Judging classes in 5th edition.

[Tony Vargas]

I don't quite understand this.

That's because you snipped 'from an optimization perspective,' which not only puts the rest of the quote in context, as acknowledging, rather expounding, a point of view, but makes it clear that there are other valid points of view.

In light of that, there's no need for you to trot out vague, unverifiable, anonymous hearsay to try to disprove, by counter-example, an absolute claim that was never made.

 

[MoonSong]

If the math doesn't support the concept, then the concept is a lie. Math is what governs the underlying reality, and if you disagree with the math, then you are wrong. It is as true of the game world as it is of the real world, except the math governing the game world is significantly more transparent.

If your concept is that you are good at sneaking, but the numbers don't support that, then you aren't actually good at sneaking. You might think you are, but you're wrong.

This, thousand times this. Funny how we disagree on basically everything but this -and healing-. But this

Saying the fighter 'doesn't support non-combat,' relative to other classes, is perfectly valid, and backed up the facts (the fighter has two features, at 6th & 14th level, that can be dedicated either to combat, synergizing powerfully with the fighter's existing features, or to non-combat, barely shoring up the fighter's conspicuous lack of skill; other classes have features dedicated to non-combat functions, including non-combat rituals that don't consume slots, not to mentions extremely versatile spellcasting).

With an obvious exception of course? n_n

Now this is my personal opinion and observation.

Something that I have noticed is when judging classes and their worth there is still the 4th edition mindset where it was more about the math than the concept. 5th edition doesn't come across as being about the math but more about the concept which is what my group and I are more about. I see people complaining about the PHB Ranger but my only complaint is that it's concept isn't up to par.

I know people are free to judge classes anyway they like, but when a system is designed around a certain perception of them is it right to judge them based around the math and say a particular class needs to be changed just because it doesn't meet that criteria?

Like [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] says, math has to back up the concept. Traditionally sorcerers casted more than wizards, and they are still sold that way, but reality is wizards routinely cast more often than sorcerers that, in turn, can end up casting even less often than all other full casters. And having such a limited pool of spells known right of the bath and chronically all the way up to 20th is not exactly that fun.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Like [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] says, math has to back up the concept. Traditionally sorcerers casted more than wizards, and they are still sold that way, but reality is wizards routinely cast more often than sorcerers that, in turn, can end up casting even less often than all other full casters. And having such a limited pool of spells known right of the bath and chronically all the way up to 20th is not exactly that fun. [/COLOR][/B]

You're not getting the argument.