Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8147262" data-attributes="member: 6987520">I agree with that. In fact, yesterday when a player was contemplating a new PC, his first thought was what race he wanted to play for a concept. I commented how different it was, because (for myself, too) IME I see a choice of class as primary, and then race as secondary (i.e. &quot;What race best supports the class I want to play and the concept I have for it?&quot;). I understand why people want to remove that link, because it leads to players choosing races with ASI bumps where they feel they need to &quot;feel strong&quot;.Which leads to the next part, about feeling strong. While that is true, it is already built into the game without needing ASIs. Whether you roll ability scores, use the standard array, or do point-buy, you have higher scores to place--so place them where you want to &quot;feel strong&quot;.Especially if you use point-buy (the preferred method IME anyway), you can have all even scores so that isn't a factor either.&nbsp; <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷‍♂️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937-2642.png" title="Man shrugging&nbsp; &nbsp; :man_shrugging:" data-shortname=":man_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /> I think it just depends more on player viewpoint and the challenge level of the game the DM sets. Does a +4 modifier make that much of a difference over a +3, or a +3 over a +2? IMO it doesn't (from a player viewpoint or as the DM) but if it matters to other groups/tables that is fine, of course.Other options are simple enough: increase point-buy points, bump up the standard array, roll 4d6-L seven times and keep the best six, arranging to taste. All of these options basically yield the same result as granting ASI bumps.Anyway, I don't want to derail your thread further. As I said, I think what you're doing is fine, I just personally have never felt the need. Good luck with it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="DND_Reborn, post: 8147262, member: 6987520"] I agree with that. In fact, yesterday when a player was contemplating a new PC, his first thought was what [I]race[/I] he wanted to play for a concept. I commented how different it was, because (for myself, too) IME I see a choice of class as primary, and then race as secondary (i.e. "What race best supports the class I want to play and the concept I have for it?"). I understand why people want to remove that link, because it leads to players choosing races with ASI bumps where they feel they need to "feel strong". Which leads to the next part, about feeling strong. While that is true, it is already built into the game without needing ASIs. Whether you roll ability scores, use the standard array, or do point-buy, you have higher scores to place--so place them where you want to "feel strong". Especially if you use point-buy (the preferred method IME anyway), you can have all even scores so that isn't a factor either. 🤷‍♂️ I think it just depends more on player viewpoint and the challenge level of the game the DM sets. Does a +4 modifier make that much of a difference over a +3, or a +3 over a +2? IMO it doesn't (from a player viewpoint or as the DM) but if it matters to other groups/tables that is fine, of course. Other options are simple enough: increase point-buy points, bump up the standard array, roll 4d6-L [I]seven[/I] times and keep the best six, arranging to taste. All of these options basically yield the same result as granting ASI bumps. Anyway, I don't want to derail your thread further. As I said, I think what you're doing is fine, I just personally have never felt the need. Good luck with it. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification