People will need to think about the true capability of classes, and not just the builds inside their comfort zones, or the results will not be accurate.
Example: there are few comparison points between an INT/CHA dumped fighter min/maxed solely for 2H combat vs. an intelligent Schrodinger's fighter.
Yet both are the same class.
I agree, Like I've seen so many combat useless bards, investigators, and rogues cause they all build towards this stereotype that has come up that these classes suck in combat so they only think to build classes that suck in combat and perpetuate the stereotype. Yet these classes can easily be built to do combat and still cover their other roles.
I started filling out the survey and gave up on it. The scale is not sufficiently defined. As a statitician I found it irritating.
For example, consider the first question:
1. Please rate your level of experience playing this class: 0 is I have never played this class, 10 is I have played many different characters of this class.
Okay, as a player I have played a barbarian from levels 10 to 13. As a GM I have played many barbarian NPCs who lasted through one encounter. I learned a lot more from the single PC barbarian than from the many NPC barbarians. Would I mark my score as a 1 because I played 1 barbarian PC? Or would I mark it as a 4 because I think my playing experience has given me strong insight into the class?
I could just decide on my own meaning to the 0-10 scale, but it feels different for each question.
3. Combat: Melee Effectiveness 0 is No ability from class features, 10 is Excels through class features
4. Combat: Ranged Effectiveness 0 is No ability from class features, 10 is Excels through class features
Barbarian has class features that are effective for combat. 10 is an easy score for melee effectiveness, because I can say it is the most effective class for melee. For ranged effectiveness, it is no slouch: has has martial proficiency with bows, it can apply its strength on an adaptive bow, and Reckless Abandon rage power works well with ranged attacks. It is somewhere in the middle. Do my decisions about the scale for question 1 help me with the scale for question 4? Nope, I have to invent the middle of the scale myself again.
The standard Strongly Agree/Agree/Indifferent/Disagree/Strongly Disagree scale won't work on this question, but you might go for a Ineffective/Weakly Effective/Average Effectiveness/Above Average/Very Effective scale for 3 and 4. Question 1 could be No Experience/One Character in One Game Session/One Character in One Module/One Character in a Campaign/Many Characters and Many Game Sessions/Many Characters over Many Modules or Campaigns.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we also post here in order to provide some description o the nuances to these areas, or should we avoid getting into debates about things like fighters?
I have a mild opinion about mediums (generally positive, with some criticisms)... but I fear unleashing the avalanche...