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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 8130621" data-attributes="member: 93670">They were, which is just lazy designing to me. It's like half of their features suck to both martial classes and non-martial classes.<a href="https://www.enworld.org/posts/8130527/react?reaction_id=1" target="_blank">Like</a>No it's much worse than that.  The value of light & medium armor proficient is two feats & we know that because if you take [spoiler="this"][ATTACH=full]128883[/ATTACH][/spoiler]add & combine[spoiler="these"][ATTACH=full]128884[/ATTACH][/spoiler]you get +2 con +2 strength for a faster moving less buffed up version of [spoiler="mountain dwarf"][ATTACH=full]128885[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]128886[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]128887[/ATTACH][/spoiler]You get this kind of design not because of some grsnd bargain good & bad for all, it comes from designing within the constraints of "medium armor would be great for a caster or rogue but these are poor stats for those, for a tr/con class likely has medium armor or can't use it so lets make them +2/+2 to be good for them because that will never change" after realizing that that getting rid of things like variable crit multipliers, variable crit ranges, & meaningful damage types made all the racial weapon proficiencies meaningless.  It's poor design that assumes the badly balanced house of cards will never have one poor assumption changed... The second that assumption changes you get a disaster & 5e is rife with that kind of thing.  If there needs to be a str/con dwarf with poison resist & a dwarf with armor proficiencies there can be individually balanced subraces with boons & penalties that make them have a roughly equivalent value as the other races rather than one mary sue dwarf that's not too bad if some bad assumptions hold true until 6e.The races don't need t o be exactly 100% equivalent & it's ok to have some subjectivity on the value of this or that feature, but combining multiple great features in one race under the phoned in justification of them being a poor match when the goal for every other race was more like one good feature or two could have been good features is very much the opposite of "excellent design"</blockquote>

Verification