Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Malmuria" data-source="post: 8374305" data-attributes="member: 7030755">Racial ASI are a legacy of class and level restrictions for races, which had the intent and more of the effect of actually creating characters who fit within archetypes (because RAW you literally could not make anything else).&nbsp; For example, from 2e:[ATTACH=full]142225[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]142226[/ATTACH]I think what [USER=6748898]@ad_hoc[/USER] meant is that if you start several 5e campaigns, with set racial ASI you will tend to get human, high elf, and gnome wizards, thus leaning into archetype.&nbsp; Whereas if you float the asi, you might have on campaign where the wizard is human, but another where the wizard is dwarf, then dragonborn wizard, etc, and the archetype fails to be meaningful.&nbsp; As far as I'm concerned, that ship has long sailed; moving from set to floating racial ASI is not a big inflection point in the change of game design.&nbsp; You can use standard array and make a Dwarf wizard with a +2 to Int or a Gnome wizard with a +3 to Int.&nbsp; They'll both basically feel like wizards, but the former will still feel weird because of the likely preconceptions that players bring to the table, not because of the ASI. More importantly, since the 3.5/pathfinder days, you may well have a party consisting of a human, a bugbear, a changeling, a halfling, and an&nbsp; anthropomorphic bat.&nbsp; I get not being into the world that such party compositions imply (I'm not either, tbh), but it's not a change that will be created by racial asi, but rather one that's been here for a long time already.&nbsp; The game design is just finally catching up to that by ditching what was already an atrophied legacy of Ad&amp;dIf you really want to go against type try having your dwarf not speak in a Scottish accent.&nbsp; That'll really throw people off. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Malmuria, post: 8374305, member: 7030755"] Racial ASI are a legacy of class and level restrictions for races, which had the intent and more of the effect of actually creating characters who fit within archetypes (because RAW you literally could not make anything else). For example, from 2e: [ATTACH type="full" width="301px"]142225[/ATTACH][ATTACH type="full" width="342px"]142226[/ATTACH] I [I]think[/I] what [USER=6748898]@ad_hoc[/USER] meant is that if you start several 5e campaigns, with set racial ASI you will tend to get human, high elf, and gnome wizards, thus leaning into archetype. Whereas if you float the asi, you might have on campaign where the wizard is human, but another where the wizard is dwarf, then dragonborn wizard, etc, and the archetype fails to be meaningful. As far as I'm concerned, that ship has long sailed; moving from set to floating racial ASI is not a big inflection point in the change of game design. You can use standard array and make a Dwarf wizard with a +2 to Int or a Gnome wizard with a +3 to Int. They'll both basically feel like wizards, but the former will still feel weird because of the likely preconceptions that players bring to the table, not because of the ASI. More importantly, since the 3.5/pathfinder days, you may well have a party consisting of a human, a bugbear, a changeling, a halfling, and an anthropomorphic bat. I get not being into the world that such party compositions imply (I'm not either, tbh), but it's not a change that will be created by racial asi, but rather one that's been here for a long time already. The game design is just finally catching up to that by ditching what was already an atrophied legacy of Ad&d If you really want to go against type try having your dwarf not speak in a Scottish accent. That'll really throw people off. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification