Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Scott Christian" data-source="post: 8449953" data-attributes="member: 6901101">I appreciate your viewpoint. But just claiming they were placed there for race/class combos instead of natural or inherent tendencies, doesn't make it so. Look at the language the PHB uses. It is clear it was geared towards biology. For example, Aasimar has a charisma bonus - because we picture angels charismatic. Their description: hair that shines like polished metal, eyes sparkling like gems, and the fact that they have golden halos should add something to charisma. By the way, these are things they are born with.Now could the designers have been thinking about how aasimars will make awesome clerics and paladins? Absolutely. But to dismiss the obvious seems purposeful.Well first, let me commend you on your description, because I actually laughed out loud. It was very good. And I am a bit jealous I have never thought of it. Thank you for making me laugh. As far as building the character, with standard array or point buy, you are correct. He would have a 10 strength. That said, I doubt most DMs would have stopped you from not placing the +2 in strength and tossing it aside. But the point is, you can't make the character with point buy or standard array.On a side note, [USER=7023887]@AcererakTriple6[/USER] , that is a great character. Awesome backstory! I like all facets of that character, and I bet that it is very fun to play.This is what I said:&quot;They are important to some players because it adds to the feel of the game. And what you call &quot;punish&quot; 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 - &quot;against type.&quot; The designers language and terminology created this. To remove it, might remove someone's feel of their table and game.&quot;In there, I never said one side was right or wrong. I said that to change the ASI, you will change the feel of the game for many, as some players see it as a challenge or more fun.?I specifically said the high elf would make the better wizard. At low levels, they would be better, at higher levels a little better or no better. In a standard array spread you would have this:Race&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Strength&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Dex&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Con&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Int&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Wis&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ChaDwarf&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 8&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 12&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 16&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 15&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 14&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 10Elf&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 8&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 16&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 12&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 16&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 13&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 10Both of these builds maximizes on their strengths, and does exactly what the PHB tells a player to do, make intelligence as high as you can get it, and then focus on dex or con. In this build, both groups have an overall +8. The elf gets that mythical +3 to int, the dwarf does not. But the dwarf can choose to focus on the con, which gives him that mythical +3. That adds up to a lot of hit points, 36 to be exact, by level 12 (with hill dwarf).In then end, I fail to see how the dwarf build is not functional. I get that the elf is better overall. But, the only thing it does to the dwarf is make it &quot;against type.&quot; It is still a good wizard, and my guess is anyone who has played one with ASIs, has still had fun.Maybe I didn't make myself clear in my earlier post. Those weren't my arguments. They were arguments used as defaults to encourage floating ASIs. Hence, why the word &quot;you&quot; (not you personally) is used. And it sounds like your table is excellent. Full of good players. But how is their charisma or strength or intelligence not define them as a person (their characters, that is)? I don't know how someone plays a 16 intelligence character without at least trying to seem smart, or an 18 charisma character without putting on some swagger. (If the table only roleplays in second person, I get it. But first person, I don't?)Sorry for the confusion. In the end, my claim is that ASIs matter to many, especially concerning the feel of the game. My other claim is, players don't want them because they want a character that has the +3, not +2. The two sides clash. In my humble opinion, I think the side that wanted to get rid of ASIs sees that it removes one characteristic that separates the races from one another, but they feel it doesn't hurt the feel of their game. In fact, they think it will help the feel of their game. The other side is the exact opposite. It hurts the feel of their game by making the playable races more alike.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Scott Christian, post: 8449953, member: 6901101"] I appreciate your viewpoint. But just claiming they were placed there for race/class combos instead of natural or inherent tendencies, doesn't make it so. Look at the language the PHB uses. It is clear it was geared towards biology. For example, Aasimar has a charisma bonus - because we picture angels charismatic. Their description: hair that shines like polished metal, eyes sparkling like gems, and the fact that they have golden halos should add something to charisma. By the way, these are things they are born with. Now could the designers have been thinking about how aasimars will make awesome clerics and paladins? Absolutely. But to dismiss the obvious seems purposeful. Well first, let me commend you on your description, because I actually laughed out loud. It was very good. And I am a bit jealous I have never thought of it. Thank you for making me laugh. As far as building the character, with standard array or point buy, you are correct. He would have a 10 strength. That said, I doubt most DMs would have stopped you from not placing the +2 in strength and tossing it aside. But the point is, you can't make the character with point buy or standard array. On a side note, [USER=7023887]@AcererakTriple6[/USER] , that is a great character. Awesome backstory! I like all facets of that character, and I bet that it is very fun to play. This is what I said: [I]"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."[/I] In there, I never said one side was right or wrong. I said that to change the ASI, you will change the [I]feel[/I] of the game for many, as some players see it as a challenge or more fun. ? I specifically said the high elf would make the better wizard. At low levels, they would be better, at higher levels a little better or no better. In a standard array spread you would have this: Race Strength Dex Con Int Wis Cha Dwarf 8 12 16 15 14 10 Elf 8 16 12 16 13 10 Both of these builds maximizes on their strengths, and does exactly what the PHB tells a player to do, make intelligence as high as you can get it, and then focus on dex or con. In this build, both groups have an overall +8. The elf gets that mythical +3 to int, the dwarf does not. But the dwarf can choose to focus on the con, which gives him that mythical +3. That adds up to a lot of hit points, 36 to be exact, by level 12 (with hill dwarf). In then end, I fail to see how the dwarf build is not functional. I get that the elf is better overall. But, the only thing it does to the dwarf is make it "against type." It is still a good wizard, and my guess is anyone who has played one with ASIs, has still had fun. Maybe I didn't make myself clear in my earlier post. Those weren't my arguments. They were arguments used as defaults to encourage floating ASIs. Hence, why the word "you" (not you personally) is used. And it sounds like your table is excellent. Full of good players. But how is their charisma or strength or intelligence not define them as a person (their characters, that is)? I don't know how someone plays a 16 intelligence character without at least trying to seem smart, or an 18 charisma character without putting on some swagger. (If the table only roleplays in second person, I get it. But first person, I don't?) Sorry for the confusion. In the end, my claim is that ASIs matter to many, especially concerning the feel of the game. My other claim is, players don't want them because they want a character that has the +3, not +2. The two sides clash. In my humble opinion, I think the side that wanted to get rid of ASIs sees that it removes one characteristic that separates the races from one another, but they feel it doesn't hurt the feel of their game. In fact, they think it will help the feel of their game. The other side is the exact opposite. It hurts the feel of their game by making the playable races more alike. [/QUOTE]

Verification