D&D (2024) First playtest thread! One D&D Character Origins.

[cbwjm]

Highest attribute from the standard array +2.
When you are satisfied with a 16 then there is no reason to have floating ASI as you can put the 16 anywhere you want and there are no penalties anymore.
In all ASI discussions the pro-floating people in the end always said that "they want to play a race/class combination" and not suck, and sucking for them was not having the 18 you can only get with the correct +2 ASI.

I thought the highest you could get with the standard array/point buy + ability score adjustment is 17? Have they changed it somewhere and I've totally missed it...

 

[dave2008]

Weirdly though it pulls casters from high fantasy and martials from gritty historical fantasy

I don't disagree with that point, but by martials I assume you mean fighters? Because rangers, barbarians, bards, and monks are all pretty magical IMO and I consider them martials. Obviously, 4e did it differently as well so D&D can pull form different sources.

D&D fighters pull from high fantasy in having magic gear.

 

[Medic]

Yep. And that still doesn't make dwarf the best race for wizards. It just expands the list of races that are top-tier. It gives options.

I can't believe we're still arguing about removing ASIs after 2 years. It's kind of ridiculous at this point.

The change does make some options flatly superior to others, though.

And I don't have a problem with the floating ASIs. I am an optimizer. I just don't envision anyone grabbing +2 to Intelligence and +1 to Charisma for their cleric for "the role-playing" when they have every reason pick Wisdom and Strength instead for charop. Is the primary incentive for shuffling around ASIs not to have a halfling wizard with 17 Intelligence instead of 15 at first level when the latter is in no way deficient?

 

[Cadence]

D&D games and the fiction D&D is pulling from aren't the same. And that disparity is actually my problem.

Weirdly though it pulls casters from high fantasy and martials from gritty historical fantasy

Is the problem more that it's pulling from War Games seasoned with an eclectic mix of whatever Gygax was reading and watching in the 60s and 70s?

What high fantasy are it's casters from? Where besides the first three volumes of Dying Earth are casters limited to a few spells a day that they can cram into their memory? Which fantasy with really powerful casters has them matched in exploits by a non-magic studying guy with a sword?

***

By historical fantasy, do you mean older fantasy novels?

 

[Haplo781]

I don't disagree with that point, but by martials I assume you mean fighters? Because rangers, barbarians, bards, and monks are all pretty magical IMO and I consider them martials. Obviously, 4e did it differently as well so D&D can pull form different sources.

D&D fighters pull from high fantasy in having magic gear.

Except everyone gets magic gear. If it were exclusive to non-casting classes that would be a different thing entirely.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I am not really familiar with the class, but isn't that the eldritch knight subclass?

You'd think so, but the printed EK doesn't learn any spells that enhance attacks - just defenses and some spells that will always be worse attack options than using a weapon.

 

[dave2008]

A monk with a sword is going to play very differently from a guy who can, for instance, make his enemies cower in terror with a battlecry, or move so fast he's effectively teleporting from point A to point B and hit every enemy in between with a sweep of his sword.

Yes, I checked the monk out. It is not set up for that, but the Ki chasis would be a good to model that type of fighter on.

Personally I don't want that type of fighter, but we don't like high magic settings either. So the game works for us. I've often thought they should make a hard split at 10th level. Everything 10 and below is mundane. From 11th above your getting in the magic warrior / super hero abilities like what you describe.

 

[TwoSix]

The change does make some options flatly superior to others, though.

And I don't have a problem with the floating ASIs. I am an optimizer. I just don't envision anyone grabbing +2 to Intelligence and +1 to Charisma for their cleric for "the role-playing" when they have every reason pick Wisdom and Strength instead for charop. Is the primary incentive for shuffling around ASIs not to have a halfling wizard with 17 Intelligence instead of 15 at first level when the latter is in no way deficient?

It's certainly my incentive. I played a bunch of halfling spellcasters in 3e, I'm glad 5e lets me play a wizard with the necessary starting 16 Int again.

 

[dave2008]

Then people would complain that they "need" floating ASI to have two 16 where they want by putting their second highest stat in their +2 and use their free 16 for a secondary attribute.

Its not a rule problem, its a mentality problem. Too many people think the "role" in "role playing" is not "the runaway elf slave who grew up in a mine working every day" but "Two handed axe fighter going into great weapon master" and WotC is actively catering that.

Agreed, that is why a play with people who don't have that mentality.

 

[Haplo781]

Is the problem more that it's pulling from War Games seasoned with an eclectic mix of whatever Gygax was reading and watching in the 60s and 70s?

What high fantasy are it's casters from? Where besides the first three volumes of Dying Earth are casters limited to a few spells a day that they can cram into their memory? Which fantasy with really powerful casters has them matched in exploits by a non-magic studying guy with a sword?

***

By historical fantasy, do you mean older fantasy novels?

I mean wizards get to be Dr. Strange and fighters are stuck being Ned Stark.

if fighters got to be Thor, or wizards were limited to Melisandre levels of power, that would be consistent.