D&D 5E Truly Understanding the Martials & Casters discussion (+)

[FrogReaver]

Maybe because non-optional rules is the default design the classes were initially balanced around?

Adding optional rules and variants could result in skewing one class more than another?

Okay, but still... why is knowing whether they were initially balanced more important than knowing if they are balanced after adding all those options in?

 

[Maxperson]

Serious question. Why should knowing how the classes stack up against each other based on 'non-optional rules' be more important than knowing how the classes stack up against each other based on 'optional rules'?

The latter doesn't show whether any class modifications should happen. People who want to talk about disparity between classes, nerfing casters and/or raising up martials, need to show it in the default rules and assumptions. Optional rules are no better or worse than house rules when it comes to that.

Especially considering that neither you, me nor Ezekiel plays under the 'non-optional rules'.

But lots of tables do AND if we're trying to figure out whether either class needs modifications, those rules can't be used. Adding in the optional rules negates any showing of disparity. At least when it comes to whether or not a class should be modified.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Okay, but still... why is knowing whether they were initially balanced more important than knowing if they are balanced after adding all those options in?

Well, if it is balanced before the options, but then unbalanced after the options, perhaps it is the options that are the issue and not the classes themselves?

Oh, and I am not advocating one is "more important" than the other, personally.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, if it is balanced before the options, but then unbalanced after the options, perhaps it is the options that are the issue and not the classes themselves?

Sure. But that doesn't mean we should look at the 'non-optional rules' first, or that doing so is more important, or better, etc.

Oh, and I am not advocating one is "more important" than the other, personally.

Doesn't sound like it

 

[DND_Reborn]

Sure. But that doesn't mean we should look at the 'non-optional rules' first, or that doing so is more important, or better, etc.

No, it certainly doesn't. But it seems like it would be easier establishing the baseline without the options first, wouldn't it??

You two are doing the work, so whichever you prefer, of course. But I think without both sides done, anything you do won't carry as much weight.

For instance, I personally find later sources more unbalanced and OP in general than the earlier sources, so if your analysis includes those later sources, such as Tasha's, without a "non-Tasha's" baseline, I really wouldn't find much interest in your overall conclusions. That isn't to say they might not be valid, but just not as substantial IMO.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure. But that doesn't mean we should look at the 'non-optional rules' first, or that doing so is more important, or better, etc.


Doesn't sound like it

Cool! Then I want to add in a rule that says that all weapons naturally roll 3x the PHB number of dice and martials crit on 12+. I call it the basketball rule.

 

[FrogReaver]

The latter doesn't show whether any class modifications should happen. People who want to talk about disparity between classes, nerfing casters and/or raising up martials, need to show it in the default rules and assumptions. Optional rules are no better or worse than house rules when it comes to that.

But lots of tables do AND if we're trying to figure out whether either class needs modifications, those rules can't be used. Adding in the optional rules negates any showing of disparity. At least when it comes to whether or not a class should be modified.

I don't really agree but I think that's a reasonable perspective.

My counter would be that I am building some featless fighters for this and that the feats are only going to be of minor impact to the wizards damage in this test. So we should get a fairly good picture of how wizards and fighters stack up in both cases.

 

[FrogReaver]

Cool! Then I want to add in a rule that says that all weapons naturally roll 3x the PHB number of dice and martials crit on 12+. I call it the basketball rule.

Great example of a non-reasonable assumption!

 

[Maxperson]

I don't really agree but I think that's a reasonable perspective.

My counter would be that I am building some featless fighters for this and that the feats are only going to be of minor impact to the wizards damage in this test. So we should get a fairly good picture of how wizards and fighters stack up in both cases.

I think you're underestimating the impact of the energy substitution feat on the wizard's ability to do damage.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, it certainly doesn't. But it seems like it would be easier establishing the baseline without the options first, wouldn't it??

You two are doing the work, so whichever you prefer, of course. But I think without both sides done, anything you do won't carry as much weight.

For instance, I personally find later sources more unbalanced and OP in general than the earlier sources, so if your analysis includes those later sources, such as Tasha's, without a "non-Tasha's" baseline, I really wouldn't find much interest in your overall conclusions. That isn't to say they might not be valid, but just not as substantial IMO.

Assuming you mean the Tasha's racial options like custom lineage (which we both are using). The difference between a Tasha's custom lineage race at level 11 and a non-tasha's race at level 12 is pretty insignificant. Meaning I don't think the use of custom lineage is enough to really discount any general conclusions we can reach. If there's other Tasha's material you are concerned with maybe we should talk about it.