Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7810203" data-attributes="member: 71699">Okay, I hope I understand you correctly. Elsewhere I've discussed a design goal of broadening viable strategies: you argue that this would narrow them.I've edited the quoted text to remove losses that fall on all, because it is relative weakness that is concerning, not absolute. Ideal arrays that could be draw to motivate a player to choose these classes include -Fighter Str16, Dex10, Con12: a mountain dwarf, +3 attack/damage, +1 hp, 18 or 20 acBarbarian Str14, Dex14, Con16: a half orc, +2 attack/damage/initiative, +3 hp, 15 or 17 acPaladin Str16, Dex10, Con10, Wis10, Cha14: a half-elf, +3 attack/damage, +2 saves, spell DC12The system can produce these arrays, but the fighter will be more common than the barbarian, and both more common than the paladin. Is scarcity the same as narrowing viable strategies? That is, the strategy remains (relatively) viable, it's just not often available.Rogue Dex16, Con10, Wis12, Cha12: a wood elf, +3 attack/damage/initiative, 15 ac, +1 perceive/persuadeMonk Dex16, Con10, Wis14: a wood elf or human, +3 attack/damage/initiative, 15 ac, +2 perceiveDruid Wis16: a half-elf, all combat stats are wild shape, spell DC13Cleric Str14, Dex10, Wis16: a human, +2 attack/damage, ac 18 or 20, saving throw DC13Bard Dex16, Con10, Cha14: a half-elf taking finesse weaponsI think you kind of hit it here: all strategies are viable with arrays the system can very well produce. As you point out, it will be rare to see an ideal array for some strategies (and especially multi-classing, which I am fine with). To know how rare would require some analysis. The tuning offered by race plays a big part.</blockquote>

Verification