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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9025148" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Evidently not--because it's not my argument. Ask [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER] why humans can do anything, but non-humans cannot.They're completely separate discussions though. There's a very big difference between the following two statements:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">"Dwarves are banned from playing Wizard, because Dwarf Wizards would be overpowered if allowed."</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">"Players rarely play Dwarf Wizards, because Dwarves do not get an Intelligence bonus, making them weaker than others that have such bonus."</li> </ol>The former is permission, justified by an ought argument (we ought not allow OP things.) The latter is description, about what player preferences are, and merely tries to explain why (players are motivated by presence/absence of features.)Now, sure, I and others often then make a new third argument, starting from an added new premise: "Players ought to be able to play what interests them, rather than what is mathematically best." By itself, largely unobjectionable, but many claim it leads (they argue unavoidably) to objectionable things. But with it, we get a valid syllogism:P1: Players choose not to play Dwarf Wizards because they're below par compared to other options.P2: Players ought to be able to play what interests them, rather than what is mathematically best.C: Therefore, Dwarves (and all races) ought not be below par compared to other options.A main argument against this new, third idea (completely distinct from both #1 and #2) is that the facile way to fulfill C is to make everything the same. Now, TBH, I usually find this argument phrased in pretty overblown ways, but it's got a kernel of truth. We offer distinct race options because they are distinct: they explore archetypes, support themes, and add flavor and variety. Call it Q: "Player character races should support distinct concepts." Hence, removing distinct racial ability bonuses (RABs) erases some of that distinctiveness. That's a valid concern.But from that valid concern, an invalid claim gets derived: "Because the facile way of achieving C is bad, costing us Q, we should not pursue C at all." But that does not follow. It would only follow that we should not pursue C if C were functionally incompatible with Q (allowing for the possibility that they could work together, but be too cumbersome to use.)First, it's not true because ability scores aren't the only difference. Dragonborn have elemental halitosis. Elves have trance. Etc. These features can, and arguably should, carry more weight than bland +2 to whatever. They make much more impact on character behavior and world elements than ability scores do. Second, maybe more important, there are other, better ways to seek C. Ones that don't remove RABs--but do change them. Specifically, 13A's method. At chargen, you pick one +2 from your race's two options. But you still get two bonuses, the other a choice of two based on class (but no doubling up! No +4 Int because you play Elf Wizard.)<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Every Dwarf will always be either stout (Con) or wise, no matter what class they play.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Every Wizard will always be either wise or intelligent, no matter what race they play.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Every Dragonborn will always be either strong or charismatic, no matter what class they play.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Every Paladin will always be either strong or charismatic, no matter what race they play.</li> </ul>Now, some might argue that "either Con or Wis" means Dwarves have less identity--but even 5e already didn't do that, because Mountain Dwarves are Con/Wis, while Hill are Con/Str. Variations within a single race are already the norm. Notably, this means you have three options for Dwarf Wizard--and one of them means getting the two Dwarf bonuses anyway! A Dragonborn Wizard has four options (Str/Int, Str/Wis, Cha/Int, Cha/Wis), but a Dragonborn Paladin has one, because you can't double up and both race and class offer the same picks.This method also opens up more design space than we had before. Frex, the Human floating bonus becomes quite strong: they in theory have nine options, representing huge variety! Another: Druid, as a class feature, picks one bonus from three options, not just two, because Druids cover more archetypes, but you still only get +2, no doubling. And Monk has you pick two class bonuses from a list of three (again, no doubling.)So not only do we preserve RABs as a source of distinctiveness, we actually improve the distinctive flexibility of Humans, and enable new, creative design along the way. Hence why I think so highly of this method: it recognizes the valid arguments for both sides and fulfills key parts of both (you can be a smart Wizard, whatever you play; RABs still matter and distinguish one race from another), and gives additional side-benefits to boot.</blockquote>

Verification