Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bill Zebub" data-source="post: 8378634" data-attributes="member: 7031982">It seems to me you are missing something big here.&nbsp; First, as I just noted, for most people it seems to be the +3, not the 17.&nbsp; Second, you're right, nobody absolutely &quot;needs&quot; the +3.&nbsp; That's hyperbole.&nbsp; But looking at the data, an overwhelming number of people take that combination.Third...and this is the big thing you are missing...you don't need to be aware of or concerned about what other people are playing to know that +1 to your primary stat is a good thing.&nbsp; If you find a +1 sword, is the only reason you swap out your regular sword because you see somebody else has one, or do you just know that +1 to your rolls is a good thing?If you use an ASI to increase your primary stat, is it because you saw another character with a higher score, or because you just know that +1 to your rolls is a good thing?For some reason you keep insisting that basic math is actually jealousy.&nbsp; What does this accomplish?&nbsp; Do you think it bolsters your argument to accuse other players of pettiness?Ok, let's go down that rabbit hole.&nbsp; Please give me an example of &quot;everything else a different race gets&quot; that isn't +1 and we'll has it out.&nbsp; Let's say I really want to play an elf who fights with a greatsword, but instead I pick half-orc.&nbsp; Please tell me how the half-orc really isn't any better than the elf, because of all those great racial features.Also, just out of curiosity, I'm wondering how much difference you think that +1 really makes.&nbsp; Just looking at normal combat, how much more effective do you think the half-orc is, compared to the elf, because of the +1?As for &quot;ending up with the same stats&quot; sure you can get to a 20 by level 12, but if you started with a 16 then by level 12 you'd have a 20 and a feat.&nbsp; And (speaking for myself) what I really want are the feats, not the boring but effective ASIs, so that's delaying by four levels the part I really want.&nbsp; And (based on available data) most D&amp;D campaigns end before level 10.&nbsp; Many of mine included.Yes, I agree that it is impacting poor design to a large degree.&nbsp; That's the whole point.Yes, it absolutely is, unless you play in an outlier campaign with very little or no combat.&nbsp; (And, if you do, your stance on this is more understandable.)Yeah I guess I'm just not going to touch that one.&nbsp; That way lies madness...and locked threads.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bill Zebub, post: 8378634, member: 7031982"] It seems to me you are missing something big here. First, as I just noted, for most people it seems to be the +3, not the 17. Second, you're right, nobody absolutely "needs" the +3. That's hyperbole. But looking at the data, an overwhelming number of people take that combination. Third...and this is the big thing you are missing...you don't need to be aware of or concerned about what other people are playing to know that +1 to your primary stat is a good thing. If you find a +1 sword, is the only reason you swap out your regular sword because you see somebody else has one, or do you just know that +1 to your rolls is a good thing? If you use an ASI to increase your primary stat, is it because you saw another character with a higher score, or because you just know that +1 to your rolls is a good thing? For some reason you keep insisting that basic math is actually jealousy. What does this accomplish? Do you think it bolsters your argument to accuse other players of pettiness? Ok, let's go down that rabbit hole. Please give me an example of "everything else a different race gets" that isn't +1 and we'll has it out. Let's say I really want to play an elf who fights with a greatsword, but instead I pick half-orc. Please tell me how the half-orc really isn't any better than the elf, because of all those great racial features. Also, just out of curiosity, I'm wondering how much difference you think that +1 really makes. Just looking at normal combat, how much more effective do you think the half-orc is, compared to the elf, because of the +1? As for "ending up with the same stats" sure you can get to a 20 by level 12, but if you started with a 16 then by level 12 you'd have a 20 and a feat. And (speaking for myself) what I really want are the feats, not the boring but effective ASIs, so that's delaying by four levels the part I really want. And (based on available data) most D&D campaigns end before level 10. Many of mine included. Yes, I agree that it is impacting poor design to a large degree. That's the whole point. Yes, it absolutely is, unless you play in an outlier campaign with very little or no combat. (And, if you do, your stance on this is more understandable.) Yeah I guess I'm just not going to touch that one. That way lies madness...and locked threads. [/QUOTE]

Verification