D&D 5E Convince me that the Ranger is a necessary Class.

[niklinna]

Anegdotical evidence doesn't change the fact that the game mechanically fights you on every step of the way and you require far, faaar more optimization to perform at the same level as someone who selected "correct" race and class combination. And on top of that, you effectively have your sheet to obiectively prove no matter what, your Halfling is not as strong as a human and your Orc is not as smart as one. You can build two characters exactly the same, except for having ne of them be "suboptimal" race for the class, and that character will never be able to catch up to the other, the way 3.5 is set up.

See, but that's the sort of challenge I want! To be limited by the rules so that I am at a disadvantage, rather than just assigning my stats so that I am mechanically at the same exact disadvantage. And I want everybody else playing the game to have that same sort of "challenge". </sarcasm>

And yet every character building guide in existence would classify race's compability with a class based on ASIs alone, up until an option to shuffle them aorund was included and far more interesting features became actually relevant.

Nothing speaks "homogenized and bland" more than ASIs.

Ayep.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

You're "facts" are hinky. +1 didn't require any optimization to compensate for. It was +1!!! That's it. That's the entirety of the difference between starting with a 16 or 18. Now if you were to argue that you needed system mastery to pick class, skills, subclass and feats correctly in order to avoid being ineffective, you'd have a point. But arguing that not having +1 involves the game "fighting you every step of the way" and "optimization" to overcome is just bupkis.

That's because of human nature, not the game. Human nature causes people to feel(incorrectly) that they need every +1 just to pass muster. They don't.

And floating ASI's are far worse than specific ones for being "homogenized and bland."

I will start from last point - I have never said I support homogenized ASI as a solution. I think it's better than hard-wired ones, but I much prefer the way Tales of the Valiant did it - just increase number of points in point buy and allow it to go up to 18 in a single stat, keep ASI for character advancement.

Second, what you call human nature I call being incentivized by the way the game is desgined and the math in it determines your character. The matter of fact in 3.5 was that in order to be as effective as an "optimal" race+class combination, you needed to optimize so much more BECAUSE of how all these +1 and -1 would add up. Not to mention that if you were using point buy, then racial -2 to a highest stat would translate to A LOT of wasted points in character creation just to be mediocre, and that did sent clear message that you are stupid for doing so. Seriously, just realizing how you had to sacrifice in other areas just to get that INT to 18, only to see it drop six points when racial -2 turn it into 18 would sting, made you realize how many areas you could improve with these points. It required you to go to ridiculous lengths to compensate for that loss, thus increasing optimization.

It isn't insulting at all. It is about what the majority of people experience in the game and thus what WotC and others will dedicate more time to thoughtful design.

However, the point isn't about game design, but is about perception of being samey between two PCs for whatever reasons. A fighter and paladin, both wearing plate, shield, and with longswords, will feel samey in many ways. As would a ranger or rogue in leather, with longbows, stealthing and scouting, etc.

My point is one feature or trait out of many doesn't necessarily have to make two PCs feel samey, and the same is true of a +2 ASI...


LOL of course thet interact "strongly and directly with Ability Scores", that is what they do!

Ability Scores, more importantly ability modifiers, partially define how good your character is at doing a specific thing, but proficiency bonus plays just as much a role.

Frankly, what does it matter if an ASI or some other racial trat predisposes a race to a specific class? That doesn't mean you have to go that direction. If a person is tall, that might predispose them to playing a particular sport or game, such as basketball, but there are many people who play it (and do it well!) who are "short" by comparison. But a tall athlete can do a different sport if they choose-they don't have to play basketball. Such an athlete might not excel as well at something like gymnastics, but they can still do it. Training, practice, dedication, and experience ultimately are much more important to long-term success.

If you allow racial ASIs to pigeon-hole your concepts of what that race/class can be, that's soley on you. There's nothing wrong with racial ASIs and frankly make races more distinct, even if several races share the same ASI, such as the number of races which all share DEX +2.

I do not respect anyone who needs to dismiss ways other people play to claim his point is "voice of the majority", tbh.

And no, classes do not feel the same, especially without the multiclass. The fact Paladin has smites or auras makes it play differently from a Fighter. Ranger is far less squishy than a Rogue. These things add up. Races don't have enough going for them for that.

If ASI don't matter, as you claim, then it's even more of a reason to remove them. They only make everything feel the same and boring. You keep saying they make race more distinct but provide no evidence, while I explained why every other racial feature does it better.

I will not honor trying to apply real-life logic to a made up game that DOESN'T OPERATE BY THE REAL LFIE LOGIC with a response.

Level 3 IS level 1, which is why my group almost always starts there. Even though the first 2 levels go quickly, I wish they would have just kept level 1 with all the abilities. I understand that they spread it out to combat multiclass cheese, but it's still really annoying.

I start at level 2.

honestly the number of species being used on average probably went down with the addition of floating ASI, now you can use the same handful of broken species for whatever class you want to.

Do you have any data or is it just something you believe in?

 

[niklinna]

I will start from last point - I have never said I support homogenized ASI as a solution. I think it's better than hard-wired ones, but I much prefer the way Tales of the Valiant did it - just increase number of points in point buy and allow it to go up to 18 in a single stat, keep ASI for character advancement.

This right here. Once you remove fixed-by-race ASI assignments from character creation, there's no reason to have ASIs at character creation at all—for point-buy and standard array at any rate. I can see how if you are rolling randomly you might want them, but then again I've seen so many variants on rolling randomly that I'd say some other number-shuffling arrangement would do as well.

Edited for clarity.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Do you have any data or is it just something you believe in?

It’s just a gut suspicion of mine, i did say ‘probably’ after all.

 

[Maxperson]

I will start from last point - I have never said I support homogenized ASI as a solution. I think it's better than hard-wired ones, but I much prefer the way Tales of the Valiant did it - just increase number of points in point buy and allow it to go up to 18 in a single stat, keep ASI for character advancement.

My main issue is that I am against contradiction. If you say that a race is stronger than other races(brawny), yet also say that it is no stronger than any other race(no str bonus), the race is a contradiction. A stronger race need to have all ways present in that race to be stronger given a bonus, and since the str stat is present in all characters, stronger races need a str bonus. You don't have to give it brawny, but if you do the strength bonus needs to be present or you have a contradictory disconnect happening.

Second, what you call human nature I call being incentivized by the way the game is desgined and the math in it determines your character. The matter of fact in 3.5 was that in order to be as effective as an "optimal" race+class combination, you needed to optimize so much more BECAUSE of how all these +1 and -1 would add up. Not to mention that if you were using point buy, then racial -2 to a highest stat would translate to A LOT of wasted points in character creation just to be mediocre, and that did sent clear message that you are stupid for doing so. Seriously, just realizing how you had to sacrifice in other areas just to get that INT to 18, only to see it drop six points when racial -2 turn it into 18 would sting, made you realize how many areas you could improve with these points. It required you to go to ridiculous lengths to compensate for that loss, thus increasing optimization.

No a single +1 was not issue among all the modifiers out there. I will grant you, though, that if you gimp yourself by using point buy, the racial penalty would hurt a lot more. If you rolled stats, though, you aren't hurting yourself enough to notice by losing that +1.

I start at level 2.

2 is better than 1

 

[ECMO3]

Level 3 IS level 1, which is why my group almost always starts there. Even though the first 2 levels go quickly, I wish they would have just kept level 1 with all the abilities. I understand that they spread it out to combat multiclass cheese, but it's still really annoying.

I don't know I am fine with levels 1 and 2. It is a bit wierd that Clerics, Sorcerers and to a degree Warlocks start with their subclass while other PCs grow into the role.

Overall I like playing level 1 and 2 though. I will say this is when you are most likely to die though.

Level 1 and 2 PCs are like those newborn turtles on the beach running for the surf and hoping to get there before something terrible happens to them.

 

[Maxperson]

This right here. Once you remove fixed-by-race ASI assignments from character creation, there's no reason to have them at all—for point-buy and standard array at any rate. I can see how if you are rolling randomly you might want them, but then again I've seen so many variants on rolling randomly that I'd say some other number-shuffling arrangement would do as well.

Racial bonuses are not about the mechanics. They are about the lore of the race. Stronger races need a strength bonus or 1) they are not a stronger race, 2) they are a contradictory race if the strength is represented another way.

The bonus is about the mechanics needing to match the lore, not something done in order to get a bonus.

 

[ezo]

I do not respect anyone who needs to dismiss ways other people play to claim his point is "voice of the majority", tbh.

If this implies you do not respect me (or my point of view), why are you replying?

Races don't have enough going for them for that.

That is your lack of vision then. They have more than enough going on that they aren't samey to me at all, even if they have some traits in common.

Ranger is far less squishy than a Rogue

Hardly. Ranger has 1 extra hp per level (2 at level 1). Rogues have uncanny dodge and evasion. To be clear, I am not saying Rogue is "far less squishy", I am saying they are roughly equivalent. Each has its merits to make it less squishy.

If ASI don't matter, as you claim, then it's even more of a reason to remove them. They only make everything feel the same and boring. You keep saying they make race more distinct but provide no evidence, while I explained why every other racial feature does it better.

I think you need to pay more attention to my posts? I've already stated I would rather not have ANY ASIs, racial or floating, at all. However, if we are going to have them, at least have them for a logical reason which could be explained if people decide they want to have those differences.

Evidence? Give me a break. Fine. A half-orc has +2 STR, while an elf does not. The half-orc can carry 30 lbs more without penalty, making them distinct in yet another way from elves.

To say a half-orc is stronger without some way of expressing that as a racial trait makes it untrue.

I will not honor trying to apply real-life logic to a made up game that DOESN'T OPERATE BY THE REAL LFIE LOGIC with a response.

Then you should probably just stop responding from the sounds of it?

You talk about things being insulting or whatever, and yet you seem to want to insult me in your replies by this statement and your opening one in the post. I'd love to have a more civil discussion, but if you aren't up for it, that's fine. Cheers.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

It’s just a gut suspicion of mine, i did say ‘probably’ after all.

Then I would like to see any actual data.

My main issue is that I am against contradiction. If you say that a race is stronger than other races(brawny), yet also say that it is no stronger than any other race(no str bonus), the race is a contradiction. A stronger race need to have all ways present in that race to be stronger given a bonus, and since the str stat is present in all characters, stronger races need a str bonus. You don't have to give it brawny, but if you do the strength bonus needs to be present or you have a contradictory disconnect happening.

No a single +1 was not issue among all the modifiers out there. I will grant you, though, that if you gimp yourself by using point buy, the racial penalty would hurt a lot more. If you rolled stats, though, you aren't hurting yourself enough to notice by losing that +1.

Simple then, do not describe one race as stronger. Use different, more precise language to describe in what way they are stronger. See my example. Orcs are great at charging their enemies and hard to put down. Dwarves are used to wearing metal armor. Goliaths can lift more. Plain and simple way to show different forms of strength and diffirentiate each race, without bland "stronger by two points all across the board, in all ways a character can be strong equally".

And point buy is a more balanced way of creating characters, more reliable and predictable than swingly rolling. Maybe this further proves racial ASI are a bad game design, that doesn't even interact well with other parts of character creation?

Racial bonuses are not about the mechanics. They are about the lore of the race. Stronger races need a strength bonus or 1) they are not a stronger race, 2) they are a contradictory race if the strength is represented another way.

The bonus is about the mechanics needing to match the lore, not something done in order to get a bonus.

I am all for changes to the lore that force writers and designers to make races more unique than "They are strong but rude, +2 Str, -2 Cha" or "They are Strong, but dumb, +2 Str, -2 Cha". Force the creators to give us more interesting lore and more racial qualitis that reflect it.

If this implies you do not respect me (or my point of view), why are you replying?


That is your lack of vision then. They have more than enough going on that they aren't samey to me at all, even if they have some traits in common.


Hardly. Ranger has 1 extra hp per level (2 at level 1). Rogues have uncanny dodge and evasion. To be clear, I am not saying Rogue is "far less squishy", I am saying they are roughly equivalent. Each has its merits to make it less squishy.


I think you need to pay more attention to my posts? I've already stated I would rather not have ANY ASIs, racial or floating, at all. However, if we are going to have them, at least have them for a logical reason which could be explained if people decide they want to have those differences.

Evidence? Give me a break. Fine. A half-orc has +2 STR, while an elf does not. The half-orc can carry 30 lbs more without penalty, making them distinct in yet another way from elves.

To say a half-orc is stronger without some way of expressing that as a racial trait makes it untrue.


Then you should probably just stop responding from the sounds of it?

You talk about things being insulting or whatever, and yet you seem to want to insult me in your replies by this statement and your opening one in the post. I'd love to have a more civil discussion, but if you aren't up for it, that's fine. Cheers.

You speak of civil discussion, yet trying to repedatelly dismiss me and people like me as playing d&d wrong, or in other ways not mattering, just to justify your own preference, argue in defence of a point you don't even believe in, seemingly to waste other peoples time and get irritated when your words aren't trusted without hint of a doubt and you are asked to prove it. You have no right to speak of civil discussion.

And the example with half-orc...you mean what Goliath can achieve with powerful build trait, without being also pushed towards being meele character?

 

[ezo]

You speak of civil discussion, yet trying to repedatelly dismiss me and people like me as playing d&d wrong, or in other ways not mattering, just to justify your own preference, argue in defence of a point you don't even believe in, seemingly to waste other peoples time and get irritated when your words aren't trusted without hint of a doubt and you are asked to prove it.

I have never, never, implied others play D&D wrong. Neither have I dismissed you or your views. I strongly disagree with them, but I've repied to your points. If you don't like the manner of my replies, you are under no obligation to reply.

You have no right to speak of civil discussion.

I have every right, thank you very much.

And the example with half-orc...you mean what Goliath can achieve with powerful build trait, without being also pushed towards being meele character?

Powerful build pushes PCs more towards melee builds than a simple STR +2!

Melee builds relying on Strength most often go for the heaviest armor and biggest weapons possible--in other words, things that weigh the most. With powerful build, even groups who use the Variant rules don't have to worry about weight carried. In plate and shield and gear, you can easily push 100 lbs of weight, which the variant rules mean a STR 20 to manage without issue. With powerful build, that 100 lbs is managed with STR 10!

Oh, and let us not forget being able to pick up and move fallen PCs to safety...

As @Maxperson explained, the simple +1 gained from STR +2 to things like attack rolls, damage, and checks is barely noticable by comparison. The only time you will notice it, is the 5% of the time when you "miss by 1", which, of course, is only 5% of the time...

Using a standard array, I have many times simply put the +2 into the 8 if the ability score is not something that is needed for the character concept. For example, a heavily armored elf with DEX 10 (8+2) or half-orc wizard with STR 10 (8+2). I have often found the +2 very useful for removing a penalty in those cases when I play with others who want to include them.

Simple numerical features never restrict your choice of race/class combos. If you are the type of player who enjoys "optimizing" your PC, then they lean that way, certainly, but that is, again, your choice. Floating ASIs just make every PC optimal and bland as a result of which, as @Maxperson points out.