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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scott Christian" data-source="post: 8119501" data-attributes="member: 6901101">I agree with you. D&D responded to it. It was a good thing.If we look at the timeline of when and why they responded, kudos to them. In fact, WotC, thank you for responding.But again, I point out that Star Trek hasn't responded because for some reason, the majority of the fan base has an easier time accepting that their races might be smarter or stronger than another. I don't know why this is. But it seems to be the case.I am not talking about lucky. I believe you know this.I am not talking about language. I believe you know this.If you want to play the exception to the rule game... ugh...For every race it lists the higher bonus first. In fact, in its pseudo-alphabetical order, it lists ASI's first. I am guessing because from an editing standpoint, they feel that is what players are most interested in. It is also why they list them in a separate chart prior to the chapter on races. It is clear the author's intended these ability score increases to be innate. The language they chose relays this.Here you go. They are just for PC's, now.Again, if we look at the timeline of when they decided to try and alter this, we get an understanding of why. I don't think they are lying, (PS - I even stated they were not) but they certainly could have been more upfront. Such as saying: "Well, we reflected back on this and decided some of our conceptions of race needed to change. So we are changing the language of their stat bonuses to be more inclusive to culture, and we are going to make it just for the PC's." But they didn't. They did it the corporate way, they rebranded. Which is fine. They are a business. But when they wrote the PHB, the language indicates this is not the case. I gave you a literal sentence that shows this, and if they meant otherwise, they would have written it a different way. And, they not only did it once, but twice.Again, I do not fault them or think it is bad they changed it. Never have. But I have pointed to you the numerous examples in this thread about how the changes might effect play.You read my last post, right? I have never said it wasn't tied to lore. I have never said it didn't matter. I said the opposite. You disagreed. Maybe if I place this in logic form it will be clearer for you and me:Static ASI ----> Fewer archetypes ----> More definable racesFloating ASI ----> More diverse archetypes ----> Less definable racesHere is a line from the PHB:"These traits sometimes dovetail with the capabilities of certain classes (see step 2). For example, the racial traits of lightfoot halflings make them exceptional rogues, and high elves tend to be powerful wizards. Sometimes playing against type can be fun, too. Half-orc paladins and mountain dwarf wizards, for example, can be unusual but memorable characters" (Pg. 11).You see, even WotC, at the time of writing the PHB, acknowledges these archetypes and how they are better suited for a class, thus allowing them to talk about playing "against type," and pointing out how it can be "memorable." Again, look at the language they use. It is distinctly tying races to archetypes to make either A) powerful builds or B) unusual and memorable builds.This is where I believe the disagreement occurs. In that third step; more or less definable races. (Since races are tied to lore.)The question is how much. You and others say it won't change, others say it will. That last sentence of yours is contradictory, and if you were given that, yeah, I can see how that would become frustrating. I have stated that I feel the DM, especially as the game has grown, doesn't really have control. He/She is more of a moderator trying to balance the table. Many at the table want different things. So I fall on the side of - it doesn't always matter what the DM wants, sometimes there is compromise and appeasement. And during those times, much of the DM's previous work might become less usable. (And as a DM, I feel we can all sympathize with that situation.)I feel I have been consistent. I even reposted a lot of my old threads. They all said the same thing. Sorry you feel like I was shifting the goal post. But in my memory, I wasn't. I was stating, over and over, in different ways, the possible outcomes of static versus floating ASI's.I did deviate my last three posts, but that is because the language in the PHB needed to be considered, imho.</blockquote>

Verification