Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TheAlkaizer" data-source="post: 8367746" data-attributes="member: 7024893">The bonus is already significant by itself. I'm not arguing it doesn't have an effect. It does. You cannot, at level 1, make an elf as strong as the strongest half-orc. People are free not to enjoy that and find it silly. I'm not going to argue against that. But what I find silly is when people cover it by saying &quot;it wasn't possible to make some creative combinations&quot; and then it devolves into an argument about how having a dwarf wizard with 16 intelligence is unplayable and a +1 modifier is the different between an enjoyable game and one that is not.I don't see how it contradicts it. My understanding is that it states something along the lines of &quot;on average, an elf would be more dextrous than a dwarf&quot;, etc. Because the bonus says nothing about the actual score of your character. It might an unimaginative and slightly boring way to reinforce the flavor, but I don't see how it contradicts it.I don't feel like elves are characterized as being weak physically. I've always seen some variance of wise, highly knowledgeable and very dexterous with light blades, bows, etc. I feel like the bonuses in-game reflect that. Not that flat bonuses like that is necessarily the most elegant design there is. Also, do note that I specified 5E because I don't have much knowledge of the old-school editions of D&amp;D, things might have been different then.Don't get me strong, I fully agree with the discomfort that most people have with other ability scores, like intelligence, wisdom and charisma. I always thought that Strength, Dexterity and Constitution bonuses should be on a per race basis, and Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma should be based on Background or Culture.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TheAlkaizer, post: 8367746, member: 7024893"] The bonus is already significant by itself. I'm not arguing it doesn't have an effect. It does. You cannot, at level 1, make an elf as strong as the strongest half-orc. People are free not to enjoy that and find it silly. I'm not going to argue against that. But what I find silly is when people cover it by saying "it wasn't possible to make some creative combinations" and then it devolves into an argument about how having a dwarf wizard with 16 intelligence is unplayable and a +1 modifier is the different between an enjoyable game and one that is not. I don't see how it contradicts it. My understanding is that it states something along the lines of "[I]on average, an elf would be more dextrous than a dwarf"[/I], etc. Because the bonus says nothing about the actual score of your character. It might an unimaginative and slightly boring way to reinforce the flavor, but I don't see how it contradicts it. I don't feel like elves are characterized as being weak physically. I've always seen some variance of wise, highly knowledgeable and very dexterous with light blades, bows, etc. I feel like the bonuses in-game reflect that. Not that flat bonuses like that is necessarily the most elegant design there is. Also, do note that I specified 5E because I don't have much knowledge of the old-school editions of D&D, things might have been different then. Don't get me strong, I fully agree with the discomfort that most people have with other ability scores, like intelligence, wisdom and charisma. I always thought that Strength, Dexterity and Constitution bonuses should be on a per race basis, and Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma should be based on Background or Culture. [/QUOTE]

Verification