Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 8380583" data-attributes="member: 23751">You're conflating a lack of encouragement with discouragement.&nbsp; It doesn't work that way.&nbsp; To discourage there needs to be a penalty, not a lack of encouragement.Nope.&nbsp; If it was just because of eldritch knights then it would simply have been an eldritch knight ability and wizards would not be able to do it.The math of 65% doesn't prove diddly.&nbsp; You need to show the designers straight out saying that +3 is the baseline for it to be anything other than assumption.The game isn't balanced around humans.I've also never read the bold part.&nbsp; Can you quote it for me?&nbsp; Players misperceiving the &quot;need&quot; to max out dex is not proof of designer intent.They didn't assume that you would take a race.&nbsp; You HAVE to take a race or you don't get to play.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />What they also didn't assume was that your race would have a racial bonus in the class's prime stat.Or maybe the player of the halfling rogue puts his 13 in dex and then has 3 +2s, instead of a +3, +2 and +1.&nbsp; A third +2 is pretty good.&nbsp; Especially when it created two 15's to make 16's at 4th level.&nbsp; 14 isn't viable.&nbsp; It's good.&nbsp; Viable implies that it just gets by.Are you seriously arguing that if the baseline is +2 that the only characters capable of achieving that are against type?&nbsp; Because that's objectively wrong.&nbsp; Not racial biology.It shows a way to develop thicker scales later in life.&nbsp; Or maybe they can molt in a certain way if they learn how.&nbsp; Or....&nbsp; Plenty of way that they could learn how to get thicker scales.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Maxperson, post: 8380583, member: 23751"] You're conflating a lack of encouragement with discouragement. It doesn't work that way. To discourage there needs to be a penalty, not a lack of encouragement. Nope. If it was just because of eldritch knights then it would simply have been an eldritch knight ability and wizards would not be able to do it. The math of 65% doesn't prove diddly. You need to show the designers straight out saying that +3 is the baseline for it to be anything other than assumption. The game isn't balanced around humans. I've also never read the bold part. Can you quote it for me? Players misperceiving the "need" to max out dex is not proof of designer intent. They didn't assume that you would take a race. You HAVE to take a race or you don't get to play. ;) What they also didn't assume was that your race would have a racial bonus in the class's prime stat. Or maybe the player of the halfling rogue puts his 13 in dex and then has 3 +2s, instead of a +3, +2 and +1. A third +2 is pretty good. Especially when it created two 15's to make 16's at 4th level. 14 isn't viable. It's good. Viable implies that it just gets by. Are you seriously arguing that if the baseline is +2 that the only characters capable of achieving that are against type? Because that's objectively wrong. Not racial biology. It shows a way to develop thicker scales later in life. Or maybe they can molt in a certain way if they learn how. Or.... Plenty of way that they could learn how to get thicker scales. [/QUOTE]

Verification