Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scott Christian" data-source="post: 8378841" data-attributes="member: 6901101">"Not viable" was this thread. The other two were previous threads. I will admit, it could have been the same person. I do not know. And the 17 is just a way of saying +3. I generally refer to it as people needing the +1. But I didn't want anyone confusing that with the +1 ASI to a specific attribute. Hence, why I just said 17. I should have been more clear.Umm... I stated ASIs are extremely important in developing archetypes, building a motif around the race and their culture, and in turn, helping create the setting that is, D&D. I think that entails a little more than flavor. I did state that no matter what you do with racial feats, skill bonuses, backgrounds, etc. none of it will matter as long as the extra +1 is there. Because that is what people focus on. Then I stated all the ways half-orcs get to be awesome wizards. But for some reason, all those good reasons fall out of focus when a player doesn't get to start with that extra +1. You do need to be aware of it. And for most newer players they learn about it from the people they are playing with. I have watched it unfold dozens of times. The player that wants to play the halfling wizard, then someone points out they can be "stronger" with a high elf, and boom, they change their character. This has literally happened dozens of time right before my eyes. If you want to insist that experienced players out there can take it upon themselves and see it right away, sure, I'll buy that. But it doesn't change the outcome - the need of the +1 outweighs everything else. And according to Wizard's data, many of the players now are new. I have never used the word jealousy. I used the word need. There is a huge difference. One connotes envy or suspicion, two negative emotions. The other connotes a desire. Desires are what makes people change their race because it is not optimal for their class. It is the point. It is impacting something you think was poorly designed. Can you see the other person's point of view, that it is impacting something that was well designed? Or must they see it your way?My stance should be understandable regardless of the campaign I play. ASIs had a meaningful affect on the D&D setting through archetype creation, racial motif, and the part of the game where players like to turn knobs and adjust the dials. Not only that, for some players it gave a forced perspective, and that perspective allowed them to play against type or made them view a class differently, thus roleplaying the class differently than they would have ever imagined had they had the primary stats in their attributes be the same as everyone else. These are the things that are removed when the ASIs were removed. For better or worse, I really can't say. But I can at least look at the people on that side and say, I understand. Just like I can say to the people that want floating ASIs, I understand the need to have that +3. It really seems to play a huge role in how the character feels at the table. And it does. It feels different, despite the minimal percentage increase. That is the point - being able to see both sides.</blockquote>

Verification