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: 8449841" data-attributes="member: 6901101">I don't agree with your premise. I believe most of the ASIs they placed were supposed to match biology. The one example you used is an exception. Dwarves being hardy, elves being dexterous, gnomes being smart, half-orcs being strong, halflings being nimble, dragonborns being strong, half-elves being charismatic, tabaxi being agile, etc. Almost all the races match their natural inclinations. The fact that you pull one example, means little when the majority of examples do relate to biology. (Which, if you saw my other post about language, I was trying to figure out how to correct since they want it to change.) So, ASIs are not random. They were carefully calculated and constructed to create stereotypes, this way players could play something called "against type." Something they mention in the first few pages of the PHB. And I have asked for a demonstration of a PC that can't be made using standard array or point buy that doesn't require the mythical 16 or 17. I have yet to see one. I think the reason is, every combination can be made - except for the 16 or 17 at level one. If you have an example, will you please share? They are important to some players because it adds to the feel of the game. And what you call "punish" many players see as more fun. Many players feel it helps them hone in on other things or utilize the concept the PHB's writers used - "against type." The designers language and terminology created this. To remove it, might remove someone's feel of their table and game. So, if the argument shifted to: "I want a 16 or 17 at first level, regardless of race; even if that ruins the feel of the game for some." I would gladly accept the way that person wants to play. But, it is never that. It is always: "You don't understand. This will open characterization. It will allow more options. It will make all tables better because we are giving the players choice. Stop punishing players." That is what I don't like. It is an argument that seems disingenuous. This is no where near equivalent. Why not just use the actual reality, if point buy and ASIs existed, and then compare them to if they didn't? Here is the equivalent:The hill dwarf wizard starts with a +2 in intelligence. As opposed to say, an high elf that can start with a +3. One has advantage against poison, the other sleep. Both have darkvision. One is hardier (+2) and wiser (+1), the other more dexterous (+2). One has tool proficiency and stonecunning, the other keen senses, trance, an extra language and an extra cantrip. One has a bonus to their hit points, the other has nothing equivalent. So let's compare and contrast:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">You could pose the argument that the +1 is more beneficial than everything else. So nothing else matters. That would definitely be a reason to have floating ASIs, even at the detriment of making races similar, and not just humans with funny hats.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">You could pose that the extra +1 the elf gets is offset by the +2 to con the dwarf gets. Because that +2 combined with adding an extra hit point at every level would equal out the two races. By level 12, the dwarf will have, on average, 24 extra hit points than the elf. That seems pretty substantial.</li> </ul>In the end, it is not equivalent. The elf has it better at level 1. By level 12, they have it a little better (maybe). And the high elf is one of the best choices for a wizard. This leads to "against type." But it does not lead to the dwarf being ineffective or terrible. By any means, they can still be a good wizard, and at level 12, equivalent.  I have never said stats don't matter. I think they play a vital role defining a character. I think they play a defining role in defining a monster or race. I think they play a defining role in the mechanical feel of the game. This is why I choose to explain to you why an ASI might matter to certain DMs and players. Because they do matter.Because the race can help define them, as opposed to only the class defining them. It adds a layer. It turns a knob. That's it. Zero. And I never said it was needed to define them as a class. Their class does this. The stats define them as a person. There is a difference. Sorry, do you mean like the ones in the Eberron book? Things like Long Limbed, Powerful Build, Sneaky, Fury of the Small? Sorry, I don't understand the question. My point exactly. If someone just said - "give me the +3. I understand that it might adversely affect other tables, but I am okay with it." I would applaud them. And even agree. Personally, I really wish they would just come out with official campaign guides, where the rules adhere differently to styles of campaign. You playing Ravenloft is a great example. There are some rules that would adhere better to the gothic horror feel, than to an epic hero feel. One, I post in this thread because I enjoy the debate over mechanics and game creation. It's a cool topic. I also post in the thread when I feel someone is arguing disingenuously. Both, are to further my education of the hobby.</blockquote>

Verification