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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8031214" data-attributes="member: 18">I think because most people play in the 1-10 range. So it's a practical issue. Whereas the "but some races are stronger than others" (which gets a bit more dubious when you apply it to other stats, particularly) is an argument based on a principal - a principal which demonstrably isn't true in 5E. Practicality > Non-existent principal.I strongly suspect they'll retain descriptions which indicate certain races are prone to be particularly agile or whatever, but 5E's 20 cap and ASIs have already moved away from the idea that your race will forever be limited to some lower number (in fact, last time that was clearly true was in what, 2E?). This is just making that more obvious and more practical at lower levels. You're going to end up with a 20 in your primary stat anyway, if you play to at least 12, regardless of race, so making it more even here is going to smooth out and diversify lower-level play.(As an aside, some people say "Well certain races will still be optimal!", and that's true, but most players aren't high-effort optimizers, but they do realize that they need a good primary stat, so avoid races which don't give that. And racial abilities lead to a lot more argument over what is actually optimal than stats. Obviously, +2 to your primary stat, and +1 to your secondary is pretty great, and most players will select from races which offer that (it's slightly more complex but that's another thread), take that out, and suddenly we're going to see a much wider selection of choices. Some people will insist Mountain Dwarves or whatever are "optimal", but somehow I don't think most players are going to go pick them, even though they can now have whatever stats people want.)</blockquote>

Verification