NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 8613311" data-attributes="member: 6877472">The simplicity of 5e allows players to quickly identify what ability scores benefit them the most, and it's completely reasonable to build a character with one high ability score and the rest mediocre trash.  Obviously, more high ability scores can be 'better', but not necessary.A Fighter can be built to use Str or Dex.  He has a lot of hit points natively, so more Con is gravy, but not necessary.  Ditto with any other ability score, which adds to checks and saves- gravy, but not necessary.A more complex system with many benefits to the different ability scores has been tried in the past- I mean, AD&D was probably the height of this, where the "shortie" races got a huge benefit from Con, and a really high ability score could net you bonus proficiencies, better followers, bonuses to mental saving throws (or even immunities at a certain point), better AC, and so on.That's not the way the game is played now, and that does mean that some ability scores suffer for it.  I'd like a more complex system, but the simple system has a benefit- it's a lot harder to "mess up" and build a character that simply doesn't work.  I mean, you still can, but it's fairly obvious what you need to do to succeed.The problem with Racial bonuses though, is that it creates a strange disconnect when it comes to world building.  Thankfully, stat penalties went away (other than that brief moment of insanity).  I remember in the old days wondering why female Drow were such bad Clerics, and how Orc witch doctors and shamans were objectively terrible- despite these archetypes being fully supported by the lore of various campaign settings.Yes, I can play a doughty Halfling Sheriff and kick butt with the same ability as any other warrior, but I'm starting with a disadvantage, and the racial bonuses I do get, don't translate into the same kind of advantages a Half-Orc in the same role enjoys.  I can catch up, but I have some drawbacks.One school of thought is that "this is just a factor of some races being better than others".  Which is logical, but it leads people to wonder how this affects the world.  "So Halfling soldiers are just worse on average than Mountain Dwarf soldiers?"  "Yes, because Mountain Dwarves are strong and have a military tradition.  Halflings do make better archers, though.""Well, unless you take into account that their bows do less damage..."And so on.  The other way to look at this is, there's no good reason to tell a player that the race they want to play isn't as good as something they might not want to play.  It might affect your verisimilitude, but I still remember the day when players rejected that "horrible WotC edition" as "not being D&D" because Dwarves could be Wizards.  At some point, sacred cows can be put to bed.  It isn't going to utterly damage the game.  5e has put a lot to bed already.  I can have a Dwarf in full plate casting arcane spells.  A Goliath can be a Bard or a Rogue.This might not be the norm, but adventurers are special in a lot of campaign settings.  If you feel this makes races not feel special, or it offends your verisimilitude, well, you can always change it back.  Rulings not rules, right?But making the game less restrictive, not more, is part of why 5e is so successful.  And millions of players can't be wrong, right?</blockquote>

Verification