Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8147255" data-attributes="member: 71699">The tier grading and consideration of MAD classes has a significant outcome. Say I mandated instead +2/+1? That will work nicely for many standard class stat arrays - where the class benefits from a single high score - but it can be less helpful for MAD arrays. Monk is a good example.I then also gave more freedom to classes where a perfect array is less likely to overshadow or press a DM into bending encounters around them. That concern comes out of acres of discussion and analysis on these forums where certain arrays in conjunction with optimal picks strain the system in various directions.Regarding Mountain Dwarfs, I believe they are the only +2/+2 core race because they are roughly half an ASI behind their kin and Strength isn't such a valuable ability in 5e. Thus I think they need about a half ASI in balance. Or not. As you can see, I didn't feel that races necessarily needed compensating!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8147255, member: 71699"] The tier grading and consideration of MAD classes has a significant outcome. Say I mandated instead +2/+1? That will work nicely for many standard class stat arrays - where the class benefits from a single high score - but it can be less helpful for MAD arrays. Monk is a good example. I then also gave more freedom to classes where a perfect array is less likely to overshadow or press a DM into bending encounters around them. That concern comes out of acres of discussion and analysis on these forums where certain arrays in conjunction with optimal picks strain the system in various directions. Regarding Mountain Dwarfs, I believe they are the only +2/+2 core race because they are roughly half an ASI behind their kin and Strength isn't such a valuable ability in 5e. Thus I think they need about a half ASI in balance. Or not. As you can see, I didn't feel that races necessarily needed compensating! [/QUOTE]

Verification