Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 6743864" data-attributes="member: 15700">I suppose you can choose to not accept it, but it's the accurate way to go.&nbsp; Much like doing math with fractions.&nbsp; You get rid of all common denominators.&nbsp; But even outside of that, when evaluating subclasses, it's just bad methodology to selectively include optional factors.&nbsp; You won't have any reliable data to evaluate.&nbsp; For example, when the design team went and balanced the classes, they have a requirement &quot;not all tables will be using feats&quot;.&nbsp; Therefore, in order to achieve their goal, they would have to balance the classes without feats being factored in.&nbsp; If you have subclasses that have large swings in their power level depending on if a feat was selected or not, that fails the overall goal.*Edit*&nbsp; I mean, look at what's being argued here.&nbsp; There's the claim that BM rangers are underpowered.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; For reasons like:*rangers will have the sharpshooter feat, and that makes giving up an attack not worth it* the paladin has a mount that he or she doesn't have to controlThose are some pretty highly specialized assumptions that have to be there, which makes it awfully odd to justify a blanket statement that BM rangers are underpowered in general.&nbsp; Even if you agreed with the assumption that giving up a sharpshooter attack is always worse than having your pet attack, which is hardly universally true.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sacrosanct, post: 6743864, member: 15700"] I suppose you can choose to not accept it, but it's the accurate way to go. Much like doing math with fractions. You get rid of all common denominators. But even outside of that, when evaluating subclasses, it's just bad methodology to selectively include optional factors. You won't have any reliable data to evaluate. For example, when the design team went and balanced the classes, they have a requirement "not all tables will be using feats". Therefore, in order to achieve their goal, they would have to balance the classes without feats being factored in. If you have subclasses that have large swings in their power level depending on if a feat was selected or not, that fails the overall goal. *Edit* I mean, look at what's being argued here. There's the claim that BM rangers are underpowered. Why? For reasons like: *rangers [i]will[/i] have the sharpshooter feat, and that makes giving up an attack not worth it * the paladin has a mount that he or she doesn't have to control Those are some pretty highly specialized assumptions that have to be there, which makes it awfully odd to justify a blanket statement that BM rangers are underpowered in general. Even if you agreed with the assumption that giving up a sharpshooter attack is always worse than having your pet attack, which is hardly universally true. [/QUOTE]

Verification