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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="UngeheuerLich" data-source="post: 8111717" data-attributes="member: 59057">That is terribly unfair and quite simplified.First you tell a fellow DM that he is stubborn if he does not include an optional rule. Second you imply that it is inherintly better to use the optional rule, because you think you speak for everyone else. Third, the desire to have meaningful choices that are more than just: my character is only 4ft tall and calls himself dwarf, but actually has all the powers of an elf also needs to be taken seriously. DnD after all is a game, and to make meaningful decisions, you need something to rely on. In 4e I was very dissatisfied with the AC of enemy rule and also the minion/elite/solo rules. As a player you had no real way to know in advance, how tough an opponent might be. Is that unarmored Goblin a lvl 20 Solo with 24 Str and AC 30? I am exaggerating of course, and the concept could actually be salvaged and done right.The quintessence of my speach is: you need some hardcoded relation between look and mechanics in a game, or you can't make meaningful decisions from a gamer's point of view.On a different note: the more meaningful change is the removal of allignment from the description of a whole humanoid species. Replacing stat bonuses with special abilities would also make me happy.The funny thing is: while the +2 bonus for dwarves is everyone's example, in my opionion con is the only stat, where you can have +2 or even -2 and not hinder someone play any class, as it is never the main stat but only nice to have.</blockquote>

Verification