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

[Maxperson]

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".

Going with the chart that @ezo provided, if your normal sized PC with an 18 strength can life 600 pounds picks up a hammer and swings it. And my normal sized 18 strength goliath who can pick up 1080 pounds and lift it picks up a hammer and swings it. my goliath is going to hit whatever he swings it at a whole lot harder and do a whole lot more damage than your PC. If a PC is almost twice as strong as another one and they hit with the same strength, something is broken.

If the strength score isn't at the proper number to represent that increase, there is a disconnect and the race is contradictory on its face.

Also, rolling is only good for powergames

This is objectively false. It's also good for roleplayers who like to roleplay stats that are more varied and uncontrolled. And it's also good for players in the middle who just like random rolls. It's probably good for some other categories of players as well, but just being able to come up with two proves your claim to be incorrect.

, point buy is how you can actually make interesting characters and have meaningul choices at character creation.

That's one way for folks who don't mind PCs being moved in yet another direction towards homogenization. Every PC starting with a 15 in their prime stat isn't very interesting.

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.

Look at the point buy chart and show me how I can buy a 3 for a stat. Then show me how I can buy a stat over 15. Point buy and arrays lose because they don't have the full 3-18 spread for every stat. They are far more limited than rolling and produce far less interesting combinations.

If someone has 3 15's with point buy, the other 3 stats MUST be 8. Every.....................single..................character..............with 3 15's will also have 3 8's. All of them. Yay for variety!!!

It's not about good or bad. It's about a more realistic spread and more variety in PCs. I'm not at all a power gamer, but I will walk out of any game that doesn't allow me to roll. It's a deal breaker for me.

 

[Maxperson]

@Not a Decepticon you may not be aware, but abusing the laugh button by clicking it on a post that is not intended to be humorous is a violation of the rules here.

 

[Maxperson]

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 is the default method in 5e and you can roll a 3, so it's you who are incorrect about what the lowest scores are. With a +2, a 5 is the lowest possible score a character can start with. That you use the optional point buy method doesn't remove rolling from 5e.

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.

As I mentioned, rolling also caters to roleplayers, folks who like random, and others. That power gamers also like rolling isn't a problem. If there is a table of power gamers out there, they have as much right to a method that fits them as you and I do.

 

[Maxperson]

Perhaps, but that's not the problem I'm alluding to, that problem is that we have two different, differently working mechanical ways to represent the same fictional quality, and that is confused.

It's only confused if they don't match up. If your race can lift almost double what mine can, but you have no bonus to strength over me, that's a confusing disconnect and a contradictory situation. Your race is both stronger and not stronger than my race, simultaneously.

 

[Remathilis]

Yes. Which is weird. What does this represent?


If they don't measure anything objective, why we have them then? If a strength score doesn't measure how strong you are, why call it strength and why have it in the first place?

Subjective measure of power.

Two fighters line up to duel. One is 4th level and has a 16 strength. The other is 6th level and has a 14 strength. Which is the better duelist? The answer is they are evenly matched to within one point of damage. Somehow, being mildly stronger equals being moderately more experienced. I don't think most people who actually do martial arts would argue that a bodybuilder can fight equally as someone with a higher color belt than them, but D&D is rarely sensical like that.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Subjective measure of power.

Two fighters line up to duel. One is 4th level and has a 16 strength. The other is 6th level and has a 14 strength. Which is the better duelist? The answer is they are evenly matched to within one point of damage. Somehow, being mildly stronger equals being moderately more experienced. I don't think most people who actually do martial arts would argue that a bodybuilder can fight equally as someone with a higher color belt than them, but D&D is rarely sensical like that.

For this, I would give advantage to the higher level fighter.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Subjective measure of power.

Two fighters line up to duel. One is 4th level and has a 16 strength. The other is 6th level and has a 14 strength. Which is the better duelist? The answer is they are evenly matched to within one point of damage. Somehow, being mildly stronger equals being moderately more experienced. I don't think most people who actually do martial arts would argue that a bodybuilder can fight equally as someone with a higher color belt than them, but D&D is rarely sensical like that.

So strength doesn't measure strength? Why call it strength then? Why have it? I don't get this...

I have no use for mechanics for the sake of mechanics. If they don't represent anything concrete, get rid of them.

 

[Remathilis]

So strength doesn't measure strength? Why call it strength then? Why have it? I don't get this... [emoji1745]

I have no use for mechanics for the sake of mechanics. If they don't represent anything concrete, get rid of them.

What does Armor Class measure? What does Hit Points measure? What does proficiency bonus measure? Heck, what does experience points measure?

You're going to realize very little of the mechanics of D&D measure anything objectively.

 

[Maxperson]

Subjective measure of power.

Two fighters line up to duel. One is 4th level and has a 16 strength. The other is 6th level and has a 14 strength. Which is the better duelist? The answer is they are evenly matched to within one point of damage. Somehow, being mildly stronger equals being moderately more experienced. I don't think most people who actually do martial arts would argue that a bodybuilder can fight equally as someone with a higher color belt than them, but D&D is rarely sensical like that.

Not it isn't a subjective measure of power. What you are describing involves skill. Being taught how to leverage your strength to hit harder, which isn't what the strength score is. The strength score is your raw strength. And in 5e, per RAW, it represents...

"Strength measures bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical force."

There is no "or" in there. It's all of those. Someone who can lift twice as much as someone else will simply hit harder as well.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What does Armor Class measure?

Ability to avoid being hit via dodging, parrying and deflection by armour.

What does Hit Points measure?

Ability to take blows and withstand damage.

What does proficiency bonus measure?

The level of skill.

Heck, what does experience points measure?

It's in the name.

You're going to realize very little of the mechanics of D&D measure anything objectively.

Some are somewhat vague and abstract. Strength actually isn't. It says it measures physical strength like one would expect.