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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 8616852" data-attributes="member: 22779">Yeah, to kind of jump off this point, I think I agree with what you are saying.  Look at the racial ASI discussions.  So many people get tipped over by the fact that racial ASI's are no longer fixed.  The player can choose where to put those numbers.  Which means, yup, you can have halflings and gnomes as strong as dragonborn or half-orcs.  Totally true.But, it also ignores the fact that now it's up to the table, rather than the game, to decide if that's something they want.  Before, sure, you could ignore the rules, if the DM let you, but, by and large, players would choose a race based on the ASI that fit with their class.  It wasn't heavy handed and you could play against type, but, there was always the pressure there to mix and match race with class that fit a specific archetype.  So, Dex races became Rogues and Rangers, Strength races become barbarians, so on and so forth.Thing is, now you can absolutely still play to archetype.  There's nothing stopping you.  But, now, instead of it being forced on everyone, it's a choice.  Do you play to archetype or not?  You don't have to.  There's nothing stopping you from choosing to completely ignore archetypes and play something new.  And, the big part of that is this is simply a continuation of what has been going on in the game since the very early days.  Way back when, you had hard level limits and hard restrictions on what race went with what class. You absolutely could not play a dwarven magic user.  Full stop.  2e relaxed a lot of these restrictions, then 3e chucked them out the window.  Now, 5e, is just continuing the same trend of allowing the players to choose instead of dictating what your game should look like.  What I don't understand is why that's a bad thing.</blockquote>

Verification