Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fireinthedust" data-source="post: 6720662" data-attributes="member: 51930">Good points!    I will say two things:  first, all options are pre-packaged by WOTC so we don't get the +6 to one ability race.  We have very specific choices from the company to keep things generally fine.Second, you're exactly right on the point about whether or not something is balanced being as much a matter of the points as it is context: if you're playing a fighter, you're going to want a Goliath, not a gnome.Racial weapons:  keep in mind that a high elf wizard is just as good with a longsword as a goliath fighter IN PROFICIENCY bonus.  That's insane, sure, but it's how 5e works.  Keep in mind that we're not judging the strategic value of the longsword.  Rather, it's the ability to use something period.  Based on the feats to learn X number of weapons, it's logical (even if it's nutty) to value a racial weapons package the same as that feat allowing you to choose X number of weapons."Balanced Homebrew":  I suppose what I mean is, all things being equal, would that kind of expenditure of mp work as the kind of thing WOTC would publish?  If it's approximately 36 to 42 mp of features, then yes.  If it's less or more, then no.  Plus six to one ability would be too much, you're right.  But what about a character who's got advantage against enchantment saves, plus resistance to cold, plus knows how to use four weapons, plus darkvision, plus can read any language?  Are those non-numbered choices broken?  Are they valuable enough that combined they work out to the same value as Varient human?Look at it another way: if a variant human chooses a feat that fits with its class and race, that's huge.  But if you make a BAD choice, it's sub par.  A tank with Sentinel would be more useful than a Lore Bard with Sentinel.  To a computer, the choices are equal: one feat is one feat, and two ability boosts, and a skill.  That's what I think is going on with 5e math: you've got the values of the traits, and a limited number of points to spend, but the ultimate usefulness of the traits is based on context.5e is supposed to be about modularity.  A race is just a package of mp you can mix and match.  I believe a class is, too, level by level; and the feats; and the backgrounds.  What WOTC is doing now, with each book they produce, is putting out lots of little packages we can mix and match; but at the core of them, each is built using the same values of mp.Though some packages use more and some less.  Maybe I'm wrong.  But it'll be interesting to see if the trend is towards power creep or towards consistency with the core products.  $700 million:  Ah!  You're right!  I misquoted, and will note that when I put up the classes article; and I'll fix it tomorrow (ie: I need sleep).  I was looking at an article I'd quoted talking about how the hobby games market was currently valued at seven hundred million, and growing to about one billion dollars.  My mix up, and I apologise.  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/blush.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":blush:" title="Blush    :blush:" data-shortname=":blush:" /><img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/blush.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":blush:" title="Blush    :blush:" data-shortname=":blush:" /><img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/blush.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":blush:" title="Blush    :blush:" data-shortname=":blush:" />   The other article was on how 5e was at the top of Amazon's list for a while; and in my head I mixed up the two.  Well, can't be right all the time!</blockquote>

Verification