D&D 5E What To Do With Racial ASIs?

[DND_Reborn]

A few dozen random people on the Internet versus the data that WotC has carefully researched about the 40+ million people into D&D ...

I'll believe the professionally sou ced research based in self-interest and profit over a poll on a hobbyist website that a miniscule fraction of board members actually participate in.

As a mathematician and statistician, I don't trust their data any more than the poll results here. Statistics can nearly always be twisted and turned to favor those collecting the data. So, until I get to see the WotC data first-hand (which I know isn't going to happen), I am not going to trust it any more than what we can get from here doing polls.

Also, as I have said repeatedly about the D&D Beyond data, a significant amount of those builds are PCs that are never played, which is another reason.

Finally, I think WotC skewed the information (not intentionally, btw) by presenting Feats as optional instead of the standard, with picking an ASI +2 as the option.

Anyway, IIRC you don't play with feats, do you? (I could be wrong and might be thinking of another poster...)

 

[Maxperson]

Mmmm...no you didn’t. I expressed skepticism in your belief that JC is lying in this one case*, and you jumped to an accusation (albeit quasi-indirectly; useful for plausible deniability) that I believe, and I quote, “everything” said by corporations.

Go re-read it. That's exactly what I said. I said very clearly that I don't just accept what corporate spokes people say.

*I mean, really, what possible motive would JC have to lie about this? Just general corporate evil-ness? A desire to not break a perfect record of lying? WTF?

I've given possible motives for why.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

As a mathematician and statistician, I don't trust their data any more than the poll results here. Statistics can nearly always be twisted and turned to favor those collecting the data. So, until I get to see the WotC data first-hand (which I know isn't going to happen), I am not going to trust it any more than what we can get from here doing polls.

If you are a mathematician and a statistician, then you know the following:

1. Enworld, as a whole, is only somewhat representative sample of the type of people that play D&D.

2. Enworld, on the forums, is much, much more skewed than the enworld as a whole.

3. Those who choose to answer the poll will be self-selecting from (2).

As such, I think the correct statement that you should be making is that while you know the poll results here are bad, you think that their data is bad because you don't agree with it; and since you can't see it, you will refuse to agree with it and instead say that:

1. They are doing something they claim that they have controlled against (non-played builds); and

2. Assert that they are just skewing the data (for this poll only).


It is possible that their data is bad; it is inarguable that their data is likely better (Bayes for you) and won't be worse, than your poll on enworld.

 

[Helldritch]

As a mathematician and statistician, I don't trust their data any more than the poll results here. Statistics can nearly always be twisted and turned to favor those collecting the data. So, until I get to see the WotC data first-hand (which I know isn't going to happen), I am not going to trust it any more than what we can get from here doing polls.

Also, as I have said repeatedly about the D&D Beyond data, a significant amount of those builds are PCs that are never played, which is another reason.

Finally, I think WotC skewed the information (not intentionally, btw) by presenting Feats as optional instead of the standard, with picking an ASI +2 as the option.

Anyway, IIRC you don't play with feats, do you? (I could be wrong and might be thinking of another poster...)

I share this mistrust of corporate data too. They will tend to twist the data in the direction they favor unless the data overwhelmingly contradict what they want to do. It is probably why they don't move on something until they get over 70% of acceptance in the gaming communities. And knowing corporations, they tend to move slowly to social unrest. They will respond fast, but they will act very slowly (if they act at all).

Now if the data analysis was done by an independant firm... it would be another matter entirely as long as the firm will share its data. But as you said: "We will never see those data".

 

[Maxperson]

As a mathematician and statistician, I don't trust their data any more than the poll results here. Statistics can nearly always be twisted and turned to favor those collecting the data. So, until I get to see the WotC data first-hand (which I know isn't going to happen), I am not going to trust it any more than what we can get from here doing polls.

Not only that, but they've given us some of their agendas, which includes not putting out a lot of crunch. It fits their narrative for very few people to like and use feats.

 

[Guest 6801328]

As a rocket surgeon and brain scientist, I think y'all are crazier than a basket full of conspiracy theorists.

 

[Charlaquin]

Not only that, but they've given us some of their agendas, which includes not putting out a lot of crunch. It fits their narrative for very few people to like and use feats.

But that “agenda” is itself based on data. Sales improved when they slowed down their production schedule. If printing tons of books full of Feats made them more money, they’d be doing it. Turns out, they’ve been making more money printing only a few books a year, and relatively few Feats compared to options like subclasses, backgrounds, races, and monster stats. Whether you trust their data or not, you should trust that a corporation will be motivated by profit above all else.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If you are a mathematician and a statistician, then you know the following:

You know, the very fact you doubt what I say I am is pretty rude IMO. So, I've erased my response.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Whether you trust their data or not, you should trust that a corporation will be motivated by profit above all else.

Wait, now I'm confused. I thought they were evil for the sake of evil?

 

[Maxperson]

But that “agenda” is itself based on data. Sales improved when they slowed down their production schedule.

Correlation does not equal causation. They changed a LOT for 5e. Further, even if it is due to less feats than 3e and 4e had, all that really means is that people didn't want 5736361629845841 feats. It doesn't mean that they only want 50.

If printing tons of books full of Feats made them more money, they’d be doing it. Turns out, they’ve been making more money printing only a few books a year, and relatively few Feats compared to options like subclasses, backgrounds, races, and monster stats. Whether you trust their data or not, you should trust that a corporation will be motivated by profit above all else.

Not if they're misreading their data or assuming things that are incorrect, which are things they have a history of doing.