Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7187454" data-attributes="member: 6778044">There's a huge different between functional and not utilizing your racial abilities.Yeah, they are much worse in my campaign. Because half-orcs in my campaign are almost always the result of an unwanted parent in the course of war. They have a lot more to worry about than a high strength.Yeah, it seems to me that the primary purpose of providing more Dexterity options is because people didn't like the idea of having to always be a Strength-based fighter. But I have players with Strength-based monks and fighters that function quite well. Of course, the goal here is to have a character you can play and survive, and they have done that better than many other characters. Including Dex-based monks, elven rogues, and all sorts of other race and class combinations.To me, a "properly constructed race" is one that fits the design concept of the race. If anything, the bonuses should apply primarily (and maybe only) if you are playing to the archetypes of that particular race. Otherwise, you're playing against type and don't gain those benefits. I'm not sure what you're referring to as the "second worst attribute in the damn game" but if it's Strength, then you are talking about a functional difference of 5% (a +1 bonus) if you aren't taking advantage of it. It's hardly game breaking. I can think of a number of different reasons to limit it rather than "exclusively to artificially limit the classes you can even play" or that it was "because the designed who made it sucks at his job." One is that I have a hard time understanding how you can throw a fire bolt or shoot an arrow "with savagery." You might make angry faces and curse, but it doesn't really have much of an impact on the spell or arrow. I would definitely agree that a thrown weapon would be different and quite reasonable.I suspect no consideration was given to limiting the classes, since it doesn't actually do that at all. In other words, I don't think any decisions were made to limit classes, just enable some others. Unlike in my world, you can still play any class you'd like with a half-orc. And it could also be better than other races at that class, since the fact that you don't get a bonus on the ability score you want does not actually limit your ability scores. You can have a half-orc wizard with an 18 Intelligence just as easily as any other race. You can't get a 20 Intelligence at 1st level, but it doesn't prevent you from gaining it later. And again, we're talking about a 5% difference in effectiveness.When you make a decision in real life, is 5% enough to change your mind? If there's a 5% chance a restaurant will be sold out of what you want for dinner, do you decide the risk is too great? Or call off a vacation to the beach because there's a 5% chance of rain, or even a hurricane? I think you're putting way too much weight on such a small amount, myself. Agreed. It's just not something that comes naturally to them. A small number of them have unusually high Wisdom or Charisma scores, and might take to the call naturally. That doesn't mean that being an Orc shaman is as common or easy for them as it is for a dwarven cleric. Really? It seems to work well for all sorts of criminals today. And parents. You don't have to follow up every threat with violence. You just have to be convincing enough to make them think you're willing and capable.  So remind me again why I can't put that 18 I rolled into Charisma? Or the 15 if you use the standard array? I've got lots of players that invest in Intelligence and Strength. For any race. Personally, I find them to function quite as expected.However, if you are the type of player that focuses on only playing the "most optimal" combination possible, while avoiding anything that would hamper that (such as playing a half-orc wizard, when other races have a bonus to Intelligence), then you will obviously feel differently. Just recognize that the game isn't necessarily designed for that approach, nor is it the approach that everybody else uses. Your design goals would differ significantly from those of the folks that designed D&D, of nearly every edition, with the possible exception of 4e. Nothing wrong with that, but it certainly doesn't mean that the game is poorly designed, or that they are incompetent at their jobs. They just have different priorities than you.</blockquote>

Verification