D&D General There are no "Editions" of D&D

[Mannahnin]

I've can't really conceive of that happening. The feats are pretty general use. However, in that very, very corner case scenario, at worst they would be equal.

It's harder to rate entire classes against one another since they have so many varying abilities. Identical fighters with only one having a feat is not the same as Paladin vs. Fighter mixed in with how rests are done. One is basic math and the other is calculus.

Another thing to consider is that when comparing whole classes, much of that comparison is going to be subjective. Do you like superiority dice more than smite for example.

I appreciate your openness to some nuance here.

A of these things you bring up are what causes the misperceptions to occur and are the reason that perception is very often greater than reality. They do not alter what reality is, though.

Well, now we're getting into fairly philosophic territory. Personally I tend to believe that if a tree falls in the woods and there's no one around to hear it, yes, it still makes a sound. But some realities are inherently subjective and internal and not as hard and objective as the measurable decibels of a falling tree.

Which character classes or individual characters are more powerful than others in a game which has flexible rules and implementations thereof, which takes idiosyncratic expression at tens or hundreds of thousands of different tables, each of which creates different conditions under which each class would or could be measured, is a much less concrete and observable thing.

In the context of my game the way I run it, a given character may be significantly, observably, obviously-in-the-view-of-all-participants, weaker or stronger than they would be in your game the way you run it.

I think "which character class is better or stronger" is often a matter of opinion dependent on context, more akin to "which food tastes better" or "which movie is more artistically satisfying" than it is to something like "which ingot of iron is heavier".

 

[Mannahnin]

This conversation reminds me of the many conversations I have with my partner. She is an emotional thinker, and I'm a logical brained thinker. To me, facts are facts. They are indisputable regardless of how we interpret them. I rely on facts because of that reason. She argues that "everyone perceives a different reality, and that's what's really important. I know how I feel is real, so that is reality."

I admit I have a hard time grokking that.

Definitely two different kinds of real things. I can tell you honestly that I do not like the taste of sour cream. That's a real fact. But it's not something you can observe or measure. I could similarly opine that in general blondes are less attractive than redheads, or men vastly less attractive than women on average. Which are real to ME, but similarly not things I can point at and SHOW you, and may be opinions which are at variance with your reality.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Definitely two different kinds of real things. I can tell you honestly that I do not like the taste of sour cream. That's a real fact. But it's not something you can observe or measure. I could similarly opine that in general blondes are less attractive than redheads, or men vastly less attractive than women on average. Which are real to ME, but similarly not things I can point at and SHOW you, and may be opinions which are at variance with your reality.

Yeah, but those are subjective things. Where I start to stumble on the understanding (and I'm guessing Maxperson as well) is when someone discounts something objective, replacing it with their personal interpretation as if it's just as valid or just as much of a fact.

Reminds me of Isaac Asimov's quote:
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

Sure, that's a bit hyperbolic, but it's along the same lines.

 

[Mannahnin]

Yeah, but those are subjective things. Where I start to stumble on the understanding (and I'm guessing Maxperson as well) is when someone discounts something objective, replacing it with their personal interpretation as if it's just as valid or just as much of a fact.

Reminds me of Isaac Asimov's quote:
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

Sure, that's a bit hyperbolic, but it's along the same lines.

Oof.

Pulling out that Asimov quote here... I can't imagine that you intend that to come off as aggressive and hostile as that does.

I think I've done some decent work explicating in my posts here how evaluation of a class or character's power level, even if it's something we can use math on parts of, is inherently subjective and contextual. I hope you'll forgive me for repeating myself, but I think it's inevitably more like reviewing a car or a movie than it is like weighing a rock. You've got lots of criteria to evaluate, but few such concrete markers than we could expect any two, nevermind ten, evaluators to give the same exact assessment or score.

 

[Cadence]

Oof.

Pulling out that Asimov quote here... I can't imagine that you intend that to come off as aggressive and hostile as that does.

I think I've done some decent work explicating in my posts here how evaluation of a class or character's power level, even if it's something we can use math on parts of, is inherently subjective and contextual. I hope you'll forgive me for repeating myself, but I think it's inevitably more like reviewing a car or a movie than it is like weighing a rock. You've got lots of criteria to evaluate, but few such concrete markers than we could expect any two, nevermind ten, evaluators to give the same exact assessment or score.

It feels like if the two car models were literally identical except for the gas mileage (or range for electric) that the one that gets more mpg (range) is better in terms of performance. If the difference is 0.01 mpg one might say it's small enough to not worry about even if it is better.

Clearly in the real world that is a hard, if not impossible, comparison to find.

In a character sheet it doesn't seem as hard if one is measuring effectiveness in some cases. "I could have chosen a +1 to combat rolls but decided to just not pick anything" feels like it's worse specs, if nothing else in terns of potential.

Now, if one is worrying about how it fits into the story, that feels like a different thing.

 

[Maxperson]

Oof.

Pulling out that Asimov quote here... I can't imagine that you intend that to come off as aggressive and hostile as that does.

I think I've done some decent work explicating in my posts here how evaluation of a class or character's power level, even if it's something we can use math on parts of, is inherently subjective and contextual. I hope you'll forgive me for repeating myself, but I think it's inevitably more like reviewing a car or a movie than it is like weighing a rock. You've got lots of criteria to evaluate, but few such concrete markers than we could expect any two, nevermind ten, evaluators to give the same exact assessment or score.

It's not like that, though.

Look at two fighters that are identical other than one of them has Alert and the other doesn't. Fighter B having +2 to initiative more than fighter A is a measurable advantage, as is the ability to initiate an initiative swap. Or one has Lucky. Fighter B having advantage on demand that can be added after you roll OR inflict disadvantage against a creature rolling an attack against you is measurably better than not having that ability at all.

This not just a subjective movie review where you like the acting of the leading actress, but I felt that her performance was a bit rushed for my taste. These are tangible objective facts.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Oof.

Pulling out that Asimov quote here... I can't imagine that you intend that to come off as aggressive and hostile as that does.

I said it was hyperbolic when I posted it, and said it only reminded me of it. if you take it as aggressive and hostile intent, well, I guess that's your interpretation of something that doesn't objectively exist... (see what I did there?)

 

[Mannahnin]

I said it was hyperbolic when I posted it, and said it only reminded me of it. if you take it as aggressive and hostile intent, well, I guess that's your interpretation of something that doesn't objectively exist... (see what I did there?)

"my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge" isn't exactly a friendly line to pull out in a disagreement. Hyperbole is not quite the word.

I have too much experience with you to think you meant to be insulting, though.

 

[Mannahnin]

It feels like if the two car models were literally identical except for the gas mileage (or range for electric) that the one that gets more mpg (range) is better in terms of performance. If the difference is 0.01 mpg one might say it's small enough to not worry about even if it is better.

Clearly in the real world that is a hard, if not impossible, comparison to find.

In a character sheet it doesn't seem as hard if one is measuring effectiveness in some cases. "I could have chosen a +1 to combat rolls but decided to just not pick anything" feels like it's worse specs, if nothing else in terns of potential.

Yeah, absolutely. A simple +1 to hit difference between two otherwise-identical Fighters is pretty incontestable. But even in D&D the comparisons are usually a lot more complex than that in real-world cases. Again, I'm trying to illustrate and Steelman Uni's original point. Let's take this in context, would you do me the favor?

It's not like that, though.

Look at two fighters that are identical other than one of them has Alert and the other doesn't. Fighter B having +2 to initiative more than fighter A is a measurable advantage, as is the ability to initiate an initiative swap. Or one has Lucky. Fighter B having advantage on demand that can be added after you roll OR inflict disadvantage against a creature rolling an attack against you is measurably better than not having that ability at all.

This not just a subjective movie review where you like the acting of the leading actress, but I felt that her performance was a bit rushed for my taste. These are tangible objective facts.

Sure. But again, you're simplifying the situation to an abstract and ideal case, but thereby removing it from the much more complex real world situations Uni was talking about. "Consider a spherical cow".

 

[Cadence]

Yeah, absolutely. A simple +1 to hit difference between two otherwise-identical Fighters is pretty incontestable. But even in D&D the comparisons are usually a lot more complex than that in real-world cases. Again, I'm trying to illustrate and Steelman Uni's original point. Let's take this in context, would you do me the favor?


Sure. But again, you're simplifying the situation to an abstract and ideal case, but thereby removing it from the much more complex real world situations Uni was talking about. "Consider a spherical cow".

And now I had to go back and reread how it started

"14 characters without the 1sr level feat along side playtest characters with the new feat."

From that there's really no way to tell given everything that goes into it (like a movie or cars). If it had been "made a set of characters just like the playtest ones, but without the feat", then it feels like it would have been akin to the +1 bonus case.