No, I'm not. Because I never once said they discouraged, in fact I literally just said they did not actively discourage. However, that is not a requirement of setting an expected baseline. You can have an expected baseline and never once punish people to actively discourage them from the opposite. Case in point: Credit Cards. I'd say that it is the expected baseline that most Americans own a credit card. You aren't actively discouraged from not owning a credit card. You aren't punished if you don't have a credit card. There are simply benefits that encourage you to have one. That doesn't mean that you can't get by without a credit card, that not having one is non-viable, it is simply a baseline expectation.
If you say, "did not actively discourage," you are saying that they passively discouraged. If you had really meant that they did not discourage, the word "active" would not have been present. You would have just said, "they did not discourage." Words mean things.
They probably went with that originally, and people didn't like it because they never liked it. And then they had to account for bards and warlocks and arcane tricksters who could all get moderately armored. Then they had to face the question of whether or not it was fair to exclude druids, rangers, clerics and paladins from having the penalty. Then they probably realized that with lightly, moderately and heavily armored that wizards and sorcerers could get it.
But at no point did they say that they wanted dwarf wizards and therefore removed the armor penalty. Because even with the armor penalty you could have dwarf wizards, because hill dwarves. It was a consequence of their choice, but it wasn't the driving factor. Heck, it is likely they removed it simply because 4e removed it and adding back in a penalty no one liked didn't appeal to them. Just like Dual-Weapon Wielding is no longer penalized.
Armored wizards are against type. They encouraged armored wizards, including dwarven ones, buy allowing wizards to cast in everything up to and including plate mail.
No, I don't. You don't need the designers of the game talking about their expectations when the games design clearly shows it.
It doesn't clearly show it. A bunch of assumption based on arbitrarily liking 65%, instead of 60% does not clear design intent make.
Yes, it absolutely is. Everything in the game has to work out that the Base Human with their +1 to everything and no feats is balanced and feels like they don't fall behind. Heck, even your assertions are assuming humans as the origin point. "Elves are more dexterous" "More dexterous than what?" Humans. Everything revolves around humans.
No, it absolutely is not. It's balanced around ALL races, not humans. And so okay, since you seem to think that because I'm using humans to compare elves to that they designed the game around humans for me, I'll switch it up. Elves are more dexterous on average than dwarves! Elves are more dexterous on average than orcs! I can keep going, but I'm sure you get the point. It's not about humans. It's about game balance as a whole, which means all races.
It would have been stupid for them to balance the game around any one race and then after they were done, created the other races around the first race. Instead they would have just set baseline math and created every race, including humans, around that baseline.
You've never read this? "You can make a rogue quickly by following these suggestions. First, Dexterity should be your highest ability score."
See, I'll admit, I was speaking loosely, and could be misunderstood. By "max out" I didn't mean, "get a 20". I meant achieve the maximum result you can for first level.
They don't say that. At face value, if I make an elven rogue with the array and put a 15 into charisma and a 13 into dex, with the +2 dex is my highest score. They didn't say, "You can make a rogue quickly by following these suggestions. First, you should make your Dexterity the highest possible number you can achieve." They are not assuming that you will choose a dex race when making that statement. 15 is the highest(unless you roll) that you can place.
Why would they do that? Halflings boost either charisma or constitution in addition to dexterity. To get three +2's you would have to make either intelligence or wisdom your highest stat, followed by constitution or charisma, with dexterity being your third highest stat before applying your ASI. And since you are playing a rogue, the first advice you get is "First, Dexterity should be your highest ability score." And by level 4 they are expecting you to have an 18 dex, not a 16.
No. If I end up with 2 15s and a 14, both 15s are my highest stat.
And now you're trying to tell me that they are dictating where you put your ASIs? Just no. they are not expecting an 18 by level 4 or 20 by level 8. Read ability score improvement. It says score or scores of your choice. There's not even a dex suggestion like you quote above there for you to rely on for this assumption of yours.
You are going to need to quote the designers or game saying straight out that they expect +3 for it to be anything other than your(and the others making the claim) assumption.
Remember, I'm not talking about a 14 in your tertiary stat, I'm talking your prime.
So am I. If the game is easy with a 14(and it is), then a 14 is good. Not viable. Good.
Really? Then show me a class and race combo that is in type (has ASIs that supports the class's prime stat) and follows the build advice in the PHB by putting their highest stat (a 15) into their prime stat, but that still ends up with a 15 in their prime stat.
I don't need to. Clerics are in type for dwarves. Dwarven clerics are a staple. Note, I'm talking about dwarves as a whole, because that's what the type encompasses. The type is not hill dwarf Clerics. It's dwarven clerics. Mountain dwarf clerics are as in type as hill dwarf clerics and mountain dwarves get no wisdom bonus. And done. You've been proven wrong.
That's because racial biology doesn't exist. There is only biology.
Um. Yes it does exist. Heck, even in real life you can specialize in animal biology, human biology, etc. Because different species have different biologies. Elven biology would be different from dwarven biology which is different than gnome biology.
