Removing The Stat Penaly on Volo's Guide Orcs

[FormerlyHemlock]

I wouldn't insist on a single best thing. Dropping someone over a cliff or holding them in a wall of fire is pretty darn good too.

Sure, but dropping them off a cliff can be done by Pushing them or Repelling Blasting instead of grappling them (Pushing is subject only to size limitations, not weight limitations), and holding them in a wall of fire doesn't require movement anyway, so carrying capacity is irrelevant. (Getting them into the wall of fire in the first place could be done by grappling, but only if you're willing to walk through the flames first yourself. Otherwise it's best done by Pushing.)

It would indeed be nice if the MM said how much creatures weigh, for that purpose. If your DM ignores the question and divides monsters into "small enough to move" vs "too large to move" and doesn't take PB into account, then obviously PB will be useless to you.

Speaking as a DM and a natural powergamer, I expect PB to be fairly useless to you regardless. There just aren't many creatures that fit into that narrow weight band where Powerful Build is relevant; and many of the creatures that do fit into that narrow band will be those kinds of somewhat-large creatures like Giant Toads that are so easily-slain that elaborate combinations such as "grapple + drag through wall of fire (taking damage in the process) + hold the enemy in the flames for several rounds" simply aren't worthwhile--you'd be better off just killing the thing. Yes, you could make an Orcish monk who grapples Giant Toads and drags them up 40' up trees with wall-running so the Giant Toads fall for 4d6 fall damage while the orc himself is fine--but it isn't hard to understand why most people don't want to!

Well, ktkenshinx rates goliaths gold and credits PB. I didn't see anyone in the thread disagree.

I stand corrected. I don't know whether kthenshinx is good at powergaming or not, but I'll take your word for it that he/she is a powergamer.

Doesn't change my actual point though, which was that it's not surprising when someone fails to get excited by Powerful Build.

 

[flametitan]

First of all, the best thing about grappling isn't actually moving others around--it's preventing them from intercepting the squishies or from getting up when knocked prone.

Secondly, the difference between 600 lb. and 1200 lb., in monster terms, is minimal. The MM doesn't even list weights for monsters, so a DM is going to have to make it up, but a horse weighs anywhere between 800 and 2200 lb. So even just a CR 1/2 horse quickly outgrows the range where a max-Strength PC, even an Orcish Barbarian PC, is going to be able to drag it around. Grappling won't be useless at high level because there are plenty of Medium creatures like drow warriors and mind flayers whom you might potentially want to grapple, but the number of creatures who fall into that 600 lb. - 1200 lb. bracket where Powerful Build makes a difference seems likely to be low. Combine that with the limited utility of the "dragging" part of grappling and yeah, that's why Powerful Build isn't renowned by powergamers.

It could be fun in roleplaying scenarios, but it's not something that fits well into combat combos, and combat is the part of the game with the most clearly-defined rules where intense tactical planning, and therefore powergaming, are most likely to occur.

That is why it's not surprising that QuietBrowser and others view Powerful Build as near-meaningless.

It's really only meaningful if you're attempting to make travel and getting prepared for long expeditions the important part of your game, and even then your bigger limitation is container capacity than carrying capacity.

 

[jaelis]

I stand corrected. I don't know whether kthenshinx is good at powergaming or not, but I'll take your word for it that he/she is a powergamer.

I would not dare to classify kthenshinx or anyone else. But my impression is that a lot of powergamers would look to guides like that for ideas and analysis, and if they saw something they thought was substantially incorrect I guess that some would post about it.

In the end all I can say is that PB would be a nice thing for a grappler to have at my table, it seems not at yours. As you suggest, the difference in how people play means you shouldn't really be surprised at anything, so I didn't express that very well. Better would be to say that I think PB is a useful ability, and leave it at that.

 

[TwoSix]

So... if stats were rolled on (4d6 drop lowest + 1), and point buy started at 9s, and Elves had +1 to Dex, and -1 to Str/Con/Wis/Cha, you'd actually be okay with that?

I think psychologically that would change the feel of the game. And games are all about psychology.

I think it's more likely that the game in that case would wind up with Elves having only a single penalty (+1 to Dex and -1 to Con) instead of four of them.

Well, no, because aesthetically that's pretty fugly. If there's some kind of baseline adjustment that can be baked into the system, it should be there. It's like an unreduced fraction. It's not wrong, but I'm pretty sure five hundred ninety-four out of six hundred people would prefer it the other way.

 

[CapnZapp]

Only play an Orc when it doesn't matter that you have 6 Int instead of 8 Int.

Problem solved - now the cost of that penalty is effectively zero.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Well, no, because aesthetically that's pretty [ugly]. If there's some kind of baseline adjustment that can be baked into the system, it should be there. It's like an unreduced fraction. It's not wrong, but I'm pretty sure five hundred ninety-four out of six hundred people would prefer it the other way.

You'd get the same effect if you rolled stats on 4d6 drop lowest, but bonuses came at odd levels instead of even.

The point remains: taking a penalty to four stats will feel different than getting a bonus to two, to most people.

 

[TwoSix]

You'd get the same effect if you rolled stats on 4d6 drop lowest, but bonuses came at odd levels instead of even.

The point remains: taking a penalty to four stats will feel different than getting a bonus to two, to most people.

Oh sure, no argument there.

 

[jayoungr]

If humans are average and some races have something worse than humans then it should be represented by a penalty to ability.

Average would be stats of 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10.

Adventurers, of whatever race, are (usually) not average.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

So, how they can go around in darkness without magic?

You kidding me? 1 cp and a visit to the general store will get you a torch.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

The point remains: taking a penalty to four stats will feel different than getting a bonus to two, to most people.

Sure, that's why they cleverly wrote it that way. The point remains: if one thinks nonhuman races should be below human average in some areas, then 5E agrees.