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

[Horwath]

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.

we also start at 3rd level, sometimes even 6th.

1st level is so boring with next to nothing to do with your charcter.

yaaay, I'm a wizard... 2 spells later; i'm a commoner with a glorified crossbow, read cantrip.

 

[Maxperson]

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".

That is what causes the contradiction. A goliath cannot lift more without having a strength bonus or it is a contradiction. Describing a race as stronger without using the word "stronger" doesn't solve the contradiction. The race is still stronger than other races while simultaneously not being stronger than other races, which is contradictory.

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?

Nah. Rolling is more realistic. Point buy and arrays produce more homogeneity as characters end up more similar to one another. Every fighter starts with a 15 strength if a strength fighter or 15 dex if a dex fighter. Every wizard with a 15 int. And for no good reason, especially in 5e. Stat bonuses mean little in 5e, so preventing higher or lower numbers that come from rolling doesn't really aid balance.

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.

They need both or you end up with contradictory races.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

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.


I have every right, thank you very much.


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

View attachment 365178

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.

For someone who pretends to not see other people's style of play you sure write whole paragraphs trying to prove your preference is obiective fact and sure tend to be dismissive of people finding your behavior disrespectful, especially in comparison to how you reacted to being disrespected yourself.

Powerful Build doesn't actually incentivise anything because carrying capacity is such a small thing no one builds around maximalizing it, except as a joke. Even in 3.5 this was a non-issue. And in 5e you really don't need much to reach strength required...in fact, most armors' restriction is not on carrying capacity, but on strength. So again, +2 STR pidgeonholes you to wear heavier armor. However, a character with powerful build being able to lift or carry twice as human of the same strength shows very well how that character is from a species built for dealing with hard labor or harsh conditions.

Anegdotical evidence is not indicative of what people play game like. I have put +2 into dump stat too. Doesnt' change the fact we're a minority. Also, I found in such situations that it made me blander and less interesting as a character, because it nuliffied my weak points. Orc wizard can be weak...just not enough for it to affect them negatively, weakest Orc is still as strong as an average joe commonner. Rudest, meanest, most anti-social Tiefling will still be as charming as an average joe. It's as if ASI are inherently bad design or something.

And no, just because you dislike floating ASI, it doesn't make set in stone ones good. Neither is the opposite true. For me the best option is what Kobold Press did in Tales of the Valiant, where they deleted ASI altogether and just gave people more points for point buy.

That is what causes the contradiction. A goliath cannot lift more without having a strength bonus or it is a contradiction. Describing a race as stronger without using the word "stronger" doesn't solve the contradiction. The race is still stronger than other races while simultaneously not being stronger than other races, which is contradictory.

Nah. Rolling is more realistic. Point buy and arrays produce more homogeneity as characters end up more similar to one another. Every fighter starts with a 15 strength if a strength fighter or 15 dex if a dex fighter. Every wizard with a 15 int. And for no good reason, especially in 5e. Stat bonuses mean little in 5e, so preventing higher or lower numbers that come from rolling doesn't really aid balance.

They need both or you end up with contradictory races.

Goliath being able to lift more point they grew in an enviroment where they did need to gain lifting strength. You are stuck on idiotic definition of strength, one that requires a strong character be strong equally in all areas at once. For all the talk about realism, this is msot unrealistic take, shows real lack of understanding how people define strength. Fistfighter is strong in a different way than a weightlifter, who is storng in a different way than a miner, who is storng in a different way than a farmer. +2 Strength is jsut lazy way to erase that entierly, kill nuance and any diversity in favor of one, narrow "strong is strong".

Also, rolling is only good for powergames, point buy is how you can actually make interesting characters and have meaningul choices at character creation. It allows you to make character who is good at their thing but you feel they paid it by lacking in different area, instead of jsut being good at everything or bad at their whole thing because dice said so.

 

[niklinna]

And no, just because you dislike floating ASI, it doesn't make set in stone ones good. Neither is the opposite true. For me the best option is what Kobold Press did in Tales of the Valiant, where they deleted ASI altogether and just gave people more points for point buy.

They did? Bully for them!

 

[ezo]

Orc wizard can be weak...just not enough for it to affect them negatively, weakest Orc is still as strong as an average joe commonner. Rudest, meanest, most anti-social Tiefling will still be as charming as an average joe.

The weakest orc would have a STR of 5 instead of 3, well below the strength of an average joe commoner. If you're thinking 8 is the lowest score, I think that is part of the issue. It is a side-effect from standard arrays and point-buys. Likewise with the Tiefling, lowest CHA is 5, not 10.

It's as if ASI are inherently bad design or something.

They aren't bad design really, but they do cater to optimizers and such. Rolling for scores is the best method IMO, and rolling in ORDER creates the most unique role-playing opportunities. I remember in 2E I had a magic-user with a STR 17 when I rolled in order. Sure, it was just a +1 to hit and damage rolls, but later on I dual-classed him to fighter and double-specialized in quarterstaff. Such a fun thing to whack someone and have it really hurt when you're a magic-user.

For me the best option is what Kobold Press did in Tales of the Valiant, where they deleted ASI altogether and just gave people more points for point buy.

For me the best option is to not have ASI and just roll scores. There's no need for more "points", or better rolls for higher scores, or anything else IMO. 4d6 drop lowest averages 12.24, which would be +6 total modifiers on average. For groups worried about balance between characters, there are a lot of systems out there to help with that and keep scores "more reasonable". Otherwise, to me it is just a different type of power creep...

Others have posted at times about different methods which would work for a "low-power" or "high-power" options. Anything like that is great--having some options allows everyone to play the way they want.

 

[ECMO3]

Rolling for scores is the best method IMO, and rolling in ORDER creates the most unique role-playing opportunities. I remember in 2E I had a magic-user with a STR 17 when I rolled in order. Sure, it was just a +1 to hit and damage rolls, but later on I dual-classed him to fighter and double-specialized in quarterstaff. Such a fun thing to whack someone and have it really hurt when you're a magic-user.

I agree with this and it does make for more flavorful characters.

I have a homebrew method I use for rolling (modified from 1E) where you choose your class first and roll stats in order that leads to very high rolls overall.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

The weakest orc would have a STR of 5 instead of 3, well below the strength of an average joe commoner. If you're thinking 8 is the lowest score, I think that is part of the issue. It is a side-effect from standard arrays and point-buys. Likewise with the Tiefling, lowest CHA is 5, not 10.


They aren't bad design really, but they do cater to optimizers and such. Rolling for scores is the best method IMO, and rolling in ORDER creates the most unique role-playing opportunities. I remember in 2E I had a magic-user with a STR 17 when I rolled in order. Sure, it was just a +1 to hit and damage rolls, but later on I dual-classed him to fighter and double-specialized in quarterstaff. Such a fun thing to whack someone and have it really hurt when you're a magic-user.


For me the best option is to not have ASI and just roll scores. There's no need for more "points", or better rolls for higher scores, or anything else IMO. 4d6 drop lowest averages 12.24, which would be +6 total modifiers on average. For groups worried about balance between characters, there are a lot of systems out there to help with that and keep scores "more reasonable". Otherwise, to me it is just a different type of power creep...

Others have posted at times about different methods which would work for a "low-power" or "high-power" options. Anything like that is great--having some options allows everyone to play the way they want.

First of all, regarding the weakest Orc, when ever you're talking about the 5e or 3.5, you are wrong. In 5e you cannot willingly decrease a dump stat bellow 8, so weakest Orc has STR of 10, as much as Joe Commonner. In 3.5 you could decrease ability score to 3, yes. But in that game Orcs gain +4 STR, meaning weakest Orc is nearly the same as an average human Commoner.

Rolling for scores als ocaters to power gamers, because you on average get better stats than through point buy. Rolling in order is just needless pidgeonholding the player into role they never wanted. What purpose does it serve to force a new player, who dreamed of playing a wizard, to be dumb fighter just because they had poor rolls, other than to bully them out of the hobby?

I still say the best option is what ToV did, by just increasing points in point buy. ASI was a poor idea when it was introduced and it's even worse idea now, that we know better.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

You have no right to speak of civil discussion.

I have every right, thank you very much.

Y’all need to check yourselves before you wreck yourselves. Your mutual tone in here is getting a tad heated.

Take a moment and consider how best to proceed.

 

[Mecheon]

The weakest orc would have a STR of 5 instead of 3, well below the strength of an average joe commoner. If you're thinking 8 is the lowest score, I think that is part of the issue. It is a side-effect from standard arrays and point-buys. Likewise with the Tiefling, lowest CHA is 5, not 10.

This just reminds me that Powerful Build is a far better way at expressing "This dude strong" than mucking around with stat totals and all that nonsense

Powerful Build goes "You're strong. Here's your strong stuff" even if you've got terrible strength

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This just reminds me that Powerful Build is a far better way at expressing "This dude strong" than mucking around with stat totals and all that nonsense

Powerful Build goes "You're strong. Here's your strong stuff" even if you've got terrible strength

But given that we have ability score called "strength" which is supposed to measure physical might, this seems very confused. Like you're strong, but you're not strong? What?