Azzy
ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚáš
Yes, because having Powerful Build and being able to lift more makes a species a beast of burden. How very logical.So your solution to ASI enforced stereotypes is to make the minotaur into a beast of burden?
Yes, because having Powerful Build and being able to lift more makes a species a beast of burden. How very logical.So your solution to ASI enforced stereotypes is to make the minotaur into a beast of burden?
This is why the ability scores should be renamed. I'm sorry, but when I see two characters, one with a Strength of 10 and another with a Strength of 16, I feel the one with the higher Strength should actually be stronger. As it is, if the Strength 10 guy has powerful build, he is literally stronger than the other character. It would be easier if they just gave the ability scores different names, or no names at all.
It's more the specific choice to give the ability to lift without combat benefits specifically to the anthropomorphic cow that's the issue. Instead of the stereotype of "minotaur makes good fighter," you get the far worse stereotype of "cow man makes a good pack mule."Yes, because having Powerful Build and being able to lift more makes a species a beast of burden. How very logical.
That's not a leap of logic, that's a pole vault of silliness.It's more the specific choice to give the ability to lift without combat benefits specifically to the anthropomorphic cow that's the issue. Instead of the stereotype of "minotaur makes good fighter," you get the far worse stereotype of "cow man makes a good pack mule."
I would say lifting stuff is about the most general use of strength there is.The STR 10 character with Powerful Build inst stronger that the STR 16 Character.
He or she just lifts more.
It's just like the paladin might have high Charisma but the bard is better at diplomatic relations due to skill expertise.
Ability scores are just your general ability.
Race and class can alter that.
Yeah. If ability score called 'strength' doesn't measure how strong a creature is, something has gone wrong.This is why the ability scores should be renamed. I'm sorry, but when I see two characters, one with a Strength of 10 and another with a Strength of 16, I feel the one with the higher Strength should actually be stronger. As it is, if the Strength 10 guy has powerful build, he is literally stronger than the other character. It would be easier if they just gave the ability scores different names, or no names at all.
Despite what some may think, it's not an illusion.This is not really something I want, but I think it would be more honest and logical than have this sort of illusion of choice.
I didn't know that WotC goons were going to break into your home and forcibly replace your 5.0 books with updated ones. Maybe you need better locks?You honestly think the PHB wont be errata/updated with 5.5?
Look, I was right with the Spooky UA, I've been right since. Fizban's is how all races will look, once reprinted.
I didn't know that WotC goons were going to break into your home and forcibly replace your 5.0 books with updated ones. Maybe you need better locks?
Stop acting like you're being persecuted when all it means is that you have to make a choice: a choice about your ASI, a choice about what books you'll allow at your table when you DM, a choice about what edition you'll play, a choice about what game you'll play.
(Or maybe, just maybe, you'll find that you'll like being able to assign your ASIs in the exact same way that you liked your tiefling paladin.)