D&D 5E New D&D Next Playtest package is up (19/9/2013) [merged threads]
- Thread starter xechnao
- Start date
@CriticalFumble
First Post
1st level dips are horrible because they make some classes way more powerful for cherry picking than others. It is ripe for abuse by min-maxxers, who should never be allowed to ruin a game.
I don't know why you keep insisting half-orcs are ugly, and attributing that view to me: it is precisely the argument I am countering.
There is no "real reason" for anything in a fantasy race: it makes as much sense to ask, what is the "real reason" they can't be more intimidating? It's as real as (your example) a gnome's sense of smell (...because they have big noses?
). Half-orcs can't help it if they're the biggest and the strongest...It is my belief that one sign of healthy, robust design when a race (any race) gets a bonus (in this case, with a particular skill-check) in an area for which they are not already optimized. That happens here, but not with most races: cf. Lightfoot Halflings and Wood Elves hiding, with a dex bonus; Elves being trained in bows, with a dex bonus; Dwarves resisting poison, with a con bonus; Halflings being nimble, with a dex bonus. You may disagree that this is a sign of good design; that's fine. In my view anything that counters the assumed low-charisma of non-humanoid races is a good step.
I don't know why you keep insisting half-orcs are ugly, and attributing that view to me: it is precisely the argument I am countering.
There is no "real reason" for anything in a fantasy race: it makes as much sense to ask, what is the "real reason" they can't be more intimidating? It's as real as (your example) a gnome's sense of smell (...because they have big noses?
Except that half orcs do not have to be the biggest or strongest. Either the half orc is small and weak (after all, the 8 can go into strength) or everything else around is bigger and strongers (half orc in a camp full of ogres). So why would the half orc be more intimidating in such situations? (Except of course the ugly stereotype but even that is relative.)
In short, there is no real explanation why half orcs would be more intimidating than other races because 1. Intimidation is a psychological effect, not a physical one and 2. Half orcs do not have to be in a better physical condition that the ones they try to intimidate. So this skill bonus should go.
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
Am I correct that casting in armor requires only proficiency with the armor? So a 1-level dip in Paladin gives casting in all armor and weapons to a mage with the sacrifice of 1/2 level of casting ability?
Sorry: that was meant to be funny. It's a quote.
1. There is no reason a half-orc might not have a psychological bonus over other races, except that you don't want them to have one.
2. Absolutely true. And so this bonus should stay, and be celebrated in song as one of the best design choices in the Races document, working not to ghettoize a race into a niche but develop them into a more nuanced creation. Cue trumpets and choirs.
Note that it's not the case that the race has training in the skill (again, cf. Dwarf and Elf weapon proficiencies): on default, they are not capable of greater intimidation than anyone else. But they will tend to do better, on average, at this one charisma-based check, than other races. Which is a perfectly acceptable design choice.
Yes; and almost: in addition to weapons and armor, you also learn how to ride horses, can cure a disease or neutralize poison or 5 hp every day, and can automatically detect a fiend or celestial or undead, for the loss of 1 level of casting ability (the half rounds down).
Last edited:
Majoru Oakheart
Adventurer
Mainly because they let people pick and choose the best abilities each level they went up. This allowed a large amount of min-maxing.
This hit me in the face when a player at a convention pointed out to me his logic how going up one level of Sorcerer when the rest of your levels were Fighter was the best idea. He pointed out 2 or 3 first level spells that gave enough benefits to entirely outweigh all the benefits you got for most levels of fighter. His argument was that a 19 Fighter/1 Sorcerer was almost ALWAYS better than a 20 Fighter. And he was right. A bunch of other people pointed out that a 1 Barbarian/1 Sorcerer/18 Fighter was almost always better still. There was certainly an argument to make that a 1 Cleric/1 Barbarian/1 Sorcerer/17 Fighter was even better...though you might be losing too much BAB at that point.
That's just the simplest form of the min-maxing that occurs. Add in PrC, Racial levels, and feats and it got much, much worse.
D&D was always created as a class based game. It isn't a point based game. I like the class based nature of it. I know a lot of other people do as well. When completely free multiclassing exists, it removes all benefit of having a class based system.
Min-maxers don't ruin games. Differences in play styles do. A group of min-maxers can have a perfectly good game, as can a group more focused on roleplaying. The strength of the system is that it allows for both.
@CriticalFumble
First Post
By game, I mean campaign... as in mixed company. One min-maxxer just ruins it for everyone else. I've seen way too many games ruined because the DM is incapable of telling the min-maxxer to stop just to keep the game going.
Similar Threads
