Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8380335" data-attributes="member: 6801228">First of all, I never said it was wrong, I'm talking about the expected baseline. The designers did not make the game assuming you would put your highest stats in your least important abilities. We know this because they directly stated the opposite in every single quick build in the game. Secondly, you are close to the right answer. The didn't expect dwarven wizards. They presented a lot of routes to discourage dwarven wizards (to preserve the archetype perhaps) and so the baseline assumes you would not play a dwarven wizard.It shows the expected baseline progression of the game. I'm not saying the 60% is bad and evil, just that the math shows that the designers were likely balancing around a 65% success rate. That's it.Actually, it isn't reasonable to assume a 14 is your highest stat. And, even if it is, the majority of races are a +2, meaning that 14 can still be a 16. Just to show the math and the charts, here is a link from anydice <a href="https://anydice.com/articles/4d6-drop-lowest/" target="_blank">4d6 Drop Lowest</a>The math shows that you have a 79.4% chance of rolling at least one 15. The chances of rolling all your stats and not getting at least one 14 that a +2 race could make a 16? That is 7.2% The statistically most likely results from rolling? 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9. If you put your highest stat in your prime attirbute, even if you don't pick a race that boosts it, then your expected highest stat is likely a 16, giving you a +3. So, standard array? Gives you a 15 and a 14. Point Buy? Even if you absolutely try and balance every stat, you will have one 14. The highest stat you can get is a 15. Rolling? you are likely to get a 16, and you are nearly guaranteed to at least get a 14. Then as long as we assume your highest stat is your prime stat, and that the game designers wanted to encourage race/class combos where you pick a race that gives a bonus to your prime stat, then the most likely baseline is 16 in your prime stat. The only way I could be wrong is if the designers expected and planned for the majority of players to "play against type". If they did not, and they planned most people would play the popular archetypes, then a 16 is the baseline.How are their feelings incorrect if those are the feelings they have? Are you saying you know their feelings better than they do? Or do you think that because you can make a mechanically viable character who doesn't match the baseline then they shouldn't have had the feelings they have, and therefore you can dismiss those feelings as irrelevant?AH, so you are just ignoring that the baseline racial stat bonus is +1. Unless humans are above the baseline in every single possible way.Again, if you think the baseline should be playing against type, then you would be right. If you think the baseline is that the designers wanted to encourage people to play arcehtypical characters, then the baseline is 16.Which since I had to ask for clarification THREE TIMES, quoting you twice directly, maybe you weren't as "clear" as you think.So your complaint is entirely theoritical? The only problem is that, in theory, someone who can't learn something int he rules could potentially learn them in the world, even if no one ever does? Personally, I don't care if the Elves are even seen as graceful. My NPCs are going to be doing what my NPCs do, and I couldn't care less about the stuff you seem to be obsessing over. Most of my blacksmiths have a 16 strength, because I want them to be perceived as strong, and that's what I need for a PC to see them as strong. But you are against these rules simply because it won't match the biological reality you see and want to enforce. Whether or not they have a practical effect is secondary.Sure, but if you can only learn a skill related to a biological reality, then it isn't just a skill is it? Like the Cirque du Solie example you dropped. Or, how about this. Breastfeeding is a skill, it takes a bit of practice and there are better ways to do it and worse ways to do it. As a man, no matter how much I try and learn, I can't learn to successfully breastfeed a baby. It is a skill, but that doesn't mean anyone can learn how to successful execute the skill.Not one that I could retract back into my body. Or one that covered my entire body. Tell me, have you grown a full-body callus?And your argument is since it is a learned skill, it can't speak towards a biological reality. Therefore, since the dragonborn can learn to retract their claws and harden their scales, a halfling can learn how to retract their claws and harden their scales. If not, then even if a feat is a learned skill, that doesn't mean everyone can learn it.Okay, so you have no idea how you could learn it, but since the PC can decide to get it later, it must be learned. The PC can decide to get +2 Dexteritiy later as well, therefore an elves +2 Dexterity is likely learned as well. It is already a learned ability, so it doesn't matter.</blockquote>

Verification