Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 8517198" data-attributes="member: 22779">Ahh, slippery slope, how I have missed thee.I'd point out that with what, a hundred or so different subclasses in 5e now across 11 base classes, the notion of &quot;class&quot; isn't really quite the same as it used to be.Because we're playing a game?&nbsp; The numbers matter to the game, but not to anything approaching a simulation of reality.&nbsp; And, again, note, you're not actually countering my point.&nbsp; The difference of +1 for a stat is going to be pretty much invisible by very early levels.&nbsp; To the point where it will not be noticeable.&nbsp; I've often been baffled by players who insist that they get that 20 stat as soon as possible.&nbsp; It's largely just gilding the lily.&nbsp; Completely unnecessary.-----------Note, there's an unspoken assumption here as well.&nbsp; That the idea that enforcing archetypes through ASI's leads to characters that fit with that archetype.&nbsp; Is that actually true?&nbsp; I find that there is a significant number of players who simply choose the race based on the best &quot;fit&quot; for the class and then never reference the race again unless it comes with a bonus - &quot;oh, it's dark?&nbsp; That's okay, I'm a __, I have darkvision&quot;.&nbsp; The fact that the character is a __ is never referenced again.&nbsp; To the point where I've actually seen other players say, &quot;Wait, you're a ___ since when?&quot; Enforcing archetypes has a long tradition in D&amp;D.&nbsp; AD&amp;D enforced it both through ability scores AND level limits.&nbsp; Heck, Basic/Expert enforced it by having races actually be classes.&nbsp; Both ideas have long been left by the wayside.&nbsp; This is no different.&nbsp; Over time, it's been found that you don't actually need to enforce archetypes.&nbsp; People will play them anyway.&nbsp; So, you will always have elven archers because of the LotR.&nbsp; And halfing rogues because that's a thing.&nbsp; And Big Race Barbarian because that's a thing.&nbsp; You don't NEED to pigeonhole the races.&nbsp; Players will happily fill up those holes anyway.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 8517198, member: 22779"] Ahh, slippery slope, how I have missed thee. I'd point out that with what, a hundred or so different subclasses in 5e now across 11 base classes, the notion of "class" isn't really quite the same as it used to be. Because we're playing a game? The numbers matter to the game, but not to anything approaching a simulation of reality. And, again, note, you're not actually countering my point. The difference of +1 for a stat is going to be pretty much invisible by very early levels. To the point where it will not be noticeable. I've often been baffled by players who insist that they get that 20 stat as soon as possible. It's largely just gilding the lily. Completely unnecessary. ----------- Note, there's an unspoken assumption here as well. That the idea that enforcing archetypes through ASI's leads to characters that fit with that archetype. Is that actually true? I find that there is a significant number of players who simply choose the race based on the best "fit" for the class and then never reference the race again unless it comes with a bonus - "oh, it's dark? That's okay, I'm a [B]__, I have darkvision". The fact that the character is a __[/B] is never referenced again. To the point where I've actually seen other players say, "Wait, you're a ___ since when?" Enforcing archetypes has a long tradition in D&D. AD&D enforced it both through ability scores AND level limits. Heck, Basic/Expert enforced it by having races actually be classes. Both ideas have long been left by the wayside. This is no different. Over time, it's been found that you don't actually need to enforce archetypes. People will play them anyway. So, you will always have elven archers because of the LotR. And halfing rogues because that's a thing. And Big Race Barbarian because that's a thing. You don't NEED to pigeonhole the races. Players will happily fill up those holes anyway. [/QUOTE]

Verification