D&D General Where Report Card Ranking Methods Fail

[FrogReaver]

"A lot of popular subclass rankings look analytical on the surface, but the method behind them is fundamentally flawed."
-Some Guy

What are Report Card Rankings?
Essentially when a class/subclass/build is scored separately in various 'subjects' on a set list, much like a report card. Final Score is then typically averaged with possibly a slight nudge up or down due to some intangibles not captured in the subject grades.

Example:

• Damage
• Survivability
• Control
• Support
• Utility

Seems analytical to me, what's the problem?
Report Cards ranking methods assume each category represents an independent, equally important dimension of performance - which is where the system breaks down. The fundamental problem is that these categories are not independent. When categories overlap, scoring them separately double counts the same resources and inflates subclasses that can’t actually express all those strengths at once. Action Economy, Resource Economy and Concentration Economy all overlap multiple categories. It's essentially the "Wizards can do everything, but not all at once and not all day" issue repeated across every category.

There's also some ancillary issues.

• How should each category be weighted - most real world implementations do it equally because it has a semblance of fairness, but equally is most likely the least correct method
• Which categories should be used in the first place - different categories can yield different final rankings
• D&D typically rewards specialization, while such averaged out report card rankings normally incentivize jack of all trades style characters
• These rankings generally overvalue abilities fueled by flexible resources (ties into fundamental problem)
• Niche powers that rarely matter, get scored as if they matter often
• Often Ignore encounter frequency and applicability (though sometimes this is factored into the category ranking)

Because of these issues, report card rankings often misrepresent real performance at the table. Any fair evaluation system needs to account for action economy overlap, resource gating, and encounter applicability - not treat them as separate subjects.

But Frogreaver, Report Card Rankings are fun.
Yes they are and by all means keep having fun with them. I enjoy reading through such lists as much as the next. I'm just here to point out that there are fundamental issues with taking them as gospel.

What's an objectively better ranking method?
Well, I'm not sure, but I am open to suggestions. I know that if we want rankings that reflect real play, we need systems built around actual decision making and action economy constraints, not just school style subject lists.

*Note this is centered on 5.5e D&D, however I believe it's broadly applicable to many other versions and many similar games.

 

[aco175]

Gee, I always thought that everyone's rankings were just based on how they played or how they feel things sorted out.

I guess some think that being written down on the interwebs and on someone's site means more than just asking a friend if something is a cool power or not for how we play the game.

 

[DarkCrisis]

I give the OPs post a B. Minus.

 

[Minigiant]

I prefer Straight SABCDF Tier Ranking because they usually factor in frequency and power of use at the table.

 

[Gorck]

I prefer Straight SABCDF Tier Ranking because they usually factor in frequency and power of use at the table.

Ooo, this is the point I finally get to climb up onto my old-man soapbox and rant about this idiotic ranking system. I don’t know what genius decided to create a system that starts with S and then goes to A-D, but I wish them a lifetime of natural 1s. The alphabet is already conveniently organized in a specific order, so why not make use of it? Start your ranking system with the traditional A and progress in order down D (or F if you want to add a Failure grade like American schools do. I’m okay with skipping E to mimic this). But starting with the 19th letter of the alphabet and then going to the beginning is an assault on my sensibilities.

 

[FrogReaver]

Ooo, this is the point I finally get to climb up onto my old-man soapbox and rant about this idiotic ranking system. I don’t know what genius decided to create a system that starts with S and then goes to A-D, but I wish them a lifetime of natural 1s. The alphabet is already conveniently organized in a specific order, so why not make use of it? Start your ranking system with the traditional A and progress in order down D (or F if you want to add a Failure grade like American schools do. I’m okay with skipping E to mimic this). But starting with the 19th letter of the alphabet and then going to the beginning is an assault on my sensibilities.

It makes more sense when you realize the origin was Japan.

 

[VashVet]

It makes more sense when you realize the origin was Japan.

File this under something new I learned today!

 

[Gorck]

It makes more sense when you realize the origin was Japan.

So the S stands for “Super Ultra Mega Happy” tier?

 

[Minigiant]

Ooo, this is the point I finally get to climb up onto my old-man soapbox and rant about this idiotic ranking system. I don’t know what genius decided to create a system that starts with S and then goes to A-D, but I wish them a lifetime of natural 1s. The alphabet is already conveniently organized in a specific order, so why not make use of it? Start your ranking system with the traditional A and progress in order down D (or F if you want to add a Failure grade like American schools do. I’m okay with skipping E to mimic this). But starting with the 19th letter of the alphabet and then going to the beginning is an assault on my sensibilities.

Blame the Japanese

They needed a score for when you scored over 100. This leaked to JRPGs. So video gamers put the top top stuff as S tier.

Which got to D&D where we list S tier as OP to the point of oppressive or detrimental.

 

[Zardnaar]

So the S stands for “Super Ultra Mega Happy” tier?

I think its something to do with stadium seating.

Buy tickets S are the best, Ds right up the back.

Originated in Japan anyway as others have said.

The good toer lists theres s lot of overlap and its often obvious what subclasses are better.

What counts as A vs S us often the difference.

I weight mine heavily towards lower levels. I think online theory crafting leans towards higher levels since 3E.

Real game level 10 is rare let alone 20. If im playing a random DM from lvl 1 or 3 I assume we will be lucky to complete the AP

White room theorycraft DPR calculations are really only guidelines for strikers. Dual wield and great weapon fighters/paladins/barbarians are generally the best at it.

I rate power over versatility as people tend to spam the same spells or piwer or whatever over and over. He ce comparatively high rating i put on Sorcerers. Command for example is an S tier spell. Its S+ when a sorcerer uses it.

I dont rate most damage that high. 5.5 might be better off slowing some 1 round and not taking the damage. Unless you're 5MWD if youre doing that a lot of things dont actually matter and you win anyway.

I'm not penalizing Barbarians for being bad at support or bards for low damage. Its not their thing. If they're good at their thing and their thing is relevant I'll make them high. More things they're good at higher mark they get.

Hence Paladins are great and most tier lists rate them high.
.levels matter as well. I want a class tgats B tier at least tier 1, A or S tier at mid levels and A tier at least higher level. If its A tier mid level S tier high level it gets weighted lower than S tier then A tier.

I want that class to peak level 3-6 ideally and not fall off to hard (not a Ranger or lesser extent barbarian). A Tier lvl 3-6 peaking by 10 is also acceptable.