NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8379460" data-attributes="member: 6801228">How do you define "good"? Because if you mean "is not useless" then sure, even if your highest total roll ends up being a +3, you are not entirely useless. If you mean "matches the expected baseline" then only if you roll for stats and happen to get lucky. Because the expected baseline if having a +5 by the beginning of the game in your best attacks and skills.Then explain why two different people at the beginning of this thread said that they felt more free to explore more options with the floating scores? Because, I did do that. Plus I had a player do that. And my Gnome Cleric was actually a key member of the party... but he felt weak and struggling at every turn. I was striving to meet that baseline goal because that lack of wisdom hurt my character. I was actually the heavily armored tank of the group... but I wanted to be a spellcaster and I had to rely on that half damage on a successful save, because nothing ever failed its save against my spells. I think part of the reason my character didn't feel too weak though was the number of the wall concepts we had. Had an orc barbarian/wizard, a dwarf ranger/bard. Two most powerful people though were the human fighter and aasimar paladin. Note how those were the two that didn't go "against type"The player who did the Dragonborn cleric a few years later, struggled even harder, but was in a group of characters that were baseline, a strong orc, a strong goliath, an elf rogue. And he constantly felt worthless in the party, despite my every effort, despite giving him magic items to shore him up, he always felt like the weak link. These aren't expeirences that didn't happen. This isn't white room theorycrafting with no "real" gameplay experience. This isn't all in my head. There is an actual issue that removing racial ASIs fixes. And the only complaint seems to come about how it makes DnD a less realistic population simulator, and I'm fine with that.Then maybe you should be more clear, again, when you say things like this. Because other than the class should start at a +0 I don't know what you mean by this "The baseline assumption should be 0."Were you trying to say that the baseline assumption should literally be nothing? That is should be a zero in every score which is literally impossible? What are trying to say if I was so far off base?Cool, be more clear so people actually understand you, and they might.Sure, and adding a single grain of salt to a meal is still "adding salt" but if you didn't change the flavor, what's the point? The realism of the game actively does not change by making Racial ASIs floating. We've told you this. We've demonstrated this.No, it shows that saying "hp is abstract and meaningless, it could be anything" wasn't a great response to my point that a feat that the majority of people see as increasing physical toughness is exactly the kind of thing we are talking about, and isn't nonsensical to be taken by a race that doesn't have a +2 Con. You think it was a good response, because somehow people's perceptions of what the feat means don't matter because HP is an abstracted concept, but it wasn't.Nope. That isn't how it works. A Cirque du Solei gymnast may have learned to twist their body into a pretzel, but that doesn't mean that anyone else, regardless of their physicality can learn to do so. If we say "only elves can learn to do this" then only elves can learn to do it. Not that anyone else really views feats as exclusively learned abilities, I mean, I certainly don't understand how you can learn to be telepathic or learn to be lucky or learn to grow retractable claws and tougher scales, but if you need feats to all be learned abilities, then knock yourself out.</blockquote>

Verification