Search results

Yeah, I think at this point we're past "racial +2s are a moral good." I am however more interested in having them be floating than being tied to background or culture. Because again, I'm interested in the story of how someone from a martial culture wound up without a martial education. Did they...

It's not really a safeguard to say "dex is the way casters get AC. Trying to be armored will require so much more investment than putting a 14 in dex and taking mage armor that you will never do it even if you want to, and even though it provides no benefit over being unarmored." It's definitely...

I like that too, but 5e as is heavily discourages it. Mostly with the unavailability of feats for non-fighters and the overall power of dexterity, the do-it-all stat.

See I like to have 8s. Clear weaknesses are a part of making an interesting character for me. And the game telling me I can't have an 8 because I thought half orc sorcerer was a cool idea just doesn't jive with me. Also because of how point buy works with scaling costs its always going to be...

Not really, I think something that embodies the race, but is more generally useful than (as an example) +2 strength. Because lets be honest, if you decide on a wizard or dex build with a +2 strength race, you basically lose access to your racial bonus. Which isn't fun or interesting. Dwarven...

So much this! Magic gear should be interesting. A +1 sword of it does 1 more damage should be a function of quality, not magic. Though this does also require dealing with the problem 5e has with giving every monster over CR5 resistance to everything martial classes can do without a magic weapon.

Well, for point buy it would let you shortcut the high cost of the top end values, and it has value to people who roll stats because it doesn't require redesigning the 4d6 drop lowest system. I don't actually know anyone who uses standard array, so idk.

Well, the ASIs should still exist but not tied to race imo, but I think I can give this a shot. Though balancing these is really more up to what human looks like under this system. Because that tends to exist as a catch-all middle ground race. At least non-variant human is supposed to...

Well currently the main combat difference between the two is a +1 roll bonus and 1 hp per level. The dwarf ranger should be better able to take a hit, maybe on a daily ability or per short rest, while the wood elf ranger could possibly gain some very limited form of cunning action for disengage...

Let's not be silly here. DnD never makes you take "the good with the bad" when it comes to race choices. You either compromise on power or flavor, unless the character you wanted to make was already a wood elf archer. If you wanted a wood elf archer, you just get all of the good things for no...

That was definitely still bad in 3e.

I mean, shouldn't that be a more important consideration that how powerful at being a [insert class here] it makes you?

It feels worse to knowingly choose to be worse than another member of your class. Randomness doesn't give a choice, so it feels different. People don't like choosing between worse and better. They'd rather choose between options that are at least roughly equivalent.

I want to see more of them at my table. And as a DM, I've seen more than enough of Half-Orc barbarians. I want to see a half-orc wizard make use of Savage Attacks on spells. And I know from experience that I see less of them at my table because they know they're getting screwed over by the...

It seems silly to restrict PCs to the racial stereotype, especially if it makes playing an orc wizard or halfling barbarian a bad idea. It's more fun to play characters succeeding against the stereotypes of their race. I'm not interested in another high elf wizard or orc fighter. We've all seen...

It should be totally freeform, because that allows for more interesting characters.