Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Assumptions about character creation
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Hriston" data-source="post: 8117514" data-attributes="member: 6787503"><p>The way I'm looking at this is that the only way Orc is always a worse choice for a wizard than Gnome is if it always results in a worse wizard, which I assume is being defined as having a lower Intelligence, and it doesn't. </p><p></p><p>Imagine two players that both decide to play wizards. One chooses to play a gnome (+2 INT) and the other chooses to play an orc (-2 INT). You would say the orc-player is choosing to play a worse wizard and the gnome-player is choosing to play a better wizard. They're both going to roll their scores, however, so at this point, their Intelligence scores are in a quantum state. You can't say, based on race alone, which player will end up with the better wizard. I'll concede that the gnome has a hefty advantage, but that's all it is, probability. It's not unlikely at all that the gnome rolls a 14 and the orc rolls an 18, both wizards ending up with the same Intelligence, 16, in which case the choice of race didn't matter at all. You can't really say in this case that the orc-player chose to play a worse wizard than the gnome-player because they aren't worse. They're just as good a wizard as the gnome. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But that just isn't true. The gnome-player did not, by choosing Gnome, guarantee themselves a higher Intelligence than the orc-player.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Not between two characters with two different sets of scores, though. The character with a +2 could have a score that is lower or equal to a character without that bonus.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, I understand how you're coming at this, but by "often isn't enough", I meant not enough to give you a higher Intelligence than another wizard whose player chose a "worse race" than you did.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think the "design flaw" was allowed to exist because the designers of the game weren't interested in catering to and designing around that play-style. Unfortunately (IMO), it seems that play-style has won out and is now a driver of design choices. At least this is true to the stated goal of making 5E a "living rule-set" even if I don't agree with the direction. Like pretty much all non-core material (or any material at all for that matter), I don't have to use it in my game.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But none of those assumptions rely on having racial ability score modifiers, so he isn't claiming anything with regard to those assumptions, at least not with the statement to which I was referring. The most likely result of rolling is that you have a natural, unmodified 16 to put in your primary ability, so no matter what PC race and class you choose (as opposed to non-PC races with negative modifiers, like orcs), you can rely on being at or close to that baseline. Racial ability score modifiers are just flavoring for your scores.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hriston, post: 8117514, member: 6787503"] The way I'm looking at this is that the only way Orc is always a worse choice for a wizard than Gnome is if it always results in a worse wizard, which I assume is being defined as having a lower Intelligence, and it doesn't. Imagine two players that both decide to play wizards. One chooses to play a gnome (+2 INT) and the other chooses to play an orc (-2 INT). You would say the orc-player is choosing to play a worse wizard and the gnome-player is choosing to play a better wizard. They're both going to roll their scores, however, so at this point, their Intelligence scores are in a quantum state. You can't say, based on race alone, which player will end up with the better wizard. I'll concede that the gnome has a hefty advantage, but that's all it is, probability. It's not unlikely at all that the gnome rolls a 14 and the orc rolls an 18, both wizards ending up with the same Intelligence, 16, in which case the choice of race didn't matter at all. You can't really say in this case that the orc-player chose to play a worse wizard than the gnome-player because they aren't worse. They're just as good a wizard as the gnome. But that just isn't true. The gnome-player did not, by choosing Gnome, guarantee themselves a higher Intelligence than the orc-player. Not between two characters with two different sets of scores, though. The character with a +2 could have a score that is lower or equal to a character without that bonus. Yes, I understand how you're coming at this, but by "often isn't enough", I meant not enough to give you a higher Intelligence than another wizard whose player chose a "worse race" than you did. I think the "design flaw" was allowed to exist because the designers of the game weren't interested in catering to and designing around that play-style. Unfortunately (IMO), it seems that play-style has won out and is now a driver of design choices. At least this is true to the stated goal of making 5E a "living rule-set" even if I don't agree with the direction. Like pretty much all non-core material (or any material at all for that matter), I don't have to use it in my game. But none of those assumptions rely on having racial ability score modifiers, so he isn't claiming anything with regard to those assumptions, at least not with the statement to which I was referring. The most likely result of rolling is that you have a natural, unmodified 16 to put in your primary ability, so no matter what PC race and class you choose (as opposed to non-PC races with negative modifiers, like orcs), you can rely on being at or close to that baseline. Racial ability score modifiers are just flavoring for your scores. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Assumptions about character creation
Top