Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8379024" data-attributes="member: 6801228">If you agree your post is wrong to a nearly insulting degree, maybe you should apologize then. Or maybe read more closely before you start agreeing by saying "yes it does"And you are hitting the nail on the head and calling it bread. You are assuming that because the player is choosing a tiefling, they want to be a rogue face. That is because tieflings get a bonus to charisma. This is literally the problem we are having, pigeonholing races into roles no matter what. You are literally highlighting the choice that many of us are protesting. That if we want t play a "face" character, we go wkith a charisma boosting race, and if we want a "stealthy" character then we go for a dexterity boosting race. I don't know how unconcious this bias is for you, but getting rid of that bias is part of what we want.Of course it isn't hard to find a race that gives us the exact numbers we want. But that isn't the point. The point isn't that we can't find + Dex races to play rogues and rangers, it is that because we can and it is so easy, we never really explore any different stories by looking at races that aren't +dex. And if the baseline for a classes competency will never be +0 in 5e. It literally can't be. If you use point buy and spread your points as evenly as possible, you will end up +1's on everything, and likely a +2 on one thing, since you have 3 pts left over. Then, if that one thing is the thing you want your character to be good at, and you pick a +2 ASI race for that attritbute, then you get a +3. The proficiency gives you a +2 to that, making a total of +5. You have to actively work to make your primary stat for attacks and saves a +3. So, no, +0 is not the baseline. It literally cannot be. And, all we are asking, is that by recognizing that the +5 is the standard, that we break out of this idea that only certain races should be able to meet this standard at level 1.Because the difference between men and women in the human race is larger than the 5% difference between goliaths and halflings. And that's the biggest difference you can get. IF you have a human compared to any other "species" of playable character, it is a 2.5% difference at best. A 2.5% difference IRL is the difference between being able to lift 50 lbs and being able to lift... 51.25 lbs. It is literally the difference between lifting a bag of dog food and lifting a bag of dog food with a frozen roll of beef in your hand. It is nothing. And this is the difference that people claim defines the species, makes them more than a human in a rubber mask. But it isn't. And it gets worse, if you really stop and think about it. Remember that math I just did, where the Adventurer of an unknown race had 12's in every stat, then a 14? That is adventurers (according to your realism meter) being equal to the average of every single race in every single stat. Your completely average non-race adventurer is just as dexterous and grace as the average elf, just as tough as the averge dwarf, just as strong as the average orc, just as smart as the average gnome, wiser and more perceptive than about the average anything, and just as charismatic as the average tiefling. With one of those stats being superior to the average of that race. In fact, if we make our average adventurer a human, then they are numerically superior to the average anything in any stat. 13's across the board with a 15. Except, this is an unoptimized and pretty poor PC. +1 in anything except their primary which is +2 which is definitely low for whatever class they take. A person who is superior in every way to the average person of any possible race in their biological stat superiorities... and they are a poor adventurers. Not helpless, certainly they are playable, but they aren't even meeting the standard numbers, and most people who had this character wouldn't be even attempting to play a few different classes, because there is no way they could be up to par. A monk or a paladin with these stats? Being that MAD? It would never happen unless the player is specifically trying to make their life harder to "play against type" And this is the major disconnect. If you assume that 10's are average with 12 being superior... then adventurers already break the scale. A character isn't even considered strong until they have a 16 in strength. Let alone impressively strong. And the game supports this. If you want to play a half-orc barbarian, and you use the standard array, and follow the advice in the PHB, then you are going to end up with a 17 strength and a 15 Con... and if you are smart about it, you end up with a 16 strength and 16 con. And that is the basics of the game, as presented by the game. The starting line isn't 10 for PCs, it is 16. Which blows this supposed realism out of the water, because the game is telling you to match race to class to make a basic character.But becomer tougher and getting hp is luck, you said it wasn't physicality. So, when I raise my con and raise my hp, it is luck increasing isn't it? Or maybe skill. Or, is it possible that it is physicality? Which then makes is so that Tough raising your hp might be tied to physicality? But then it would need to be tied to con, or it would be "nonsensical" Well, it is nonsense either way it seems.Why not, if they are the only people capable of learning it?Don't think I have. After all, you are still caring about this because you roleplay an elf that cares about them being "more graceful than humans". Pretty hard to put a different spin on that ball.</blockquote>

Verification