Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="John Quixote" data-source="post: 8193986" data-attributes="member: 694">Here are a couple of problems/tensions I see going unmentioned in this debate:• There is no mechanic that can ever resolve the tension between gaming groups who want D&D player characters to be mechanically "special" vs. groups who want D&D characters to be mechanically "ordinary" and only special because of what they do. This is a meta issue that depends almost entirely on how each group flavors what it means to be a player character or adventurer. "Anything goes because player characters are always outliers" is not a circle that can ever be squared with "elves have traits A, B, and C, while halflings have traits X, Y, and Z."• There is an inherent tension between fantasy (or sci-fi) species having tendencies/inclinations (whether "inborn" or "cultural") and the game-design objective of opening up the game so that all races are equally good at all classes. This goes far beyond ability score adjustments: if races have any special traits at all, some of them will inevitably synergize with some classes. You cannot have a game where elves are both "especially good at being wizards" and "equally good at all classes." It may very well be for some groups that killing off the former notion (stereotypical elf wizards) is desirable; but that won't hold true for every group. Archetypes in any genre are difficult things to do away with. In games, they're useful.• Does anybody else find it vaguely ridiculous that there's so much digital ink being spilled over a +2 adjustment to an ability score, which is (when you get right down to it) nothing more than a 10% shift in the bell-curve? If we look back to the "commoner average" idea from 3e, the idea that all the scores are predicated on the fundamental, underlying definition that the average human has a 10–11 in all six scores (the top of the bell-curve on a 3–18 range), the whole point of adjustments is to shift that curve slightly for non-humans: a halfling's +2 Dex means nothing more than that the average halfling has a 12–13 Dex, on a 5–20 range. A human rogue with a Dex 18 is still heaps more nimble than the average halfling. A halfling with Str 16 is still loads stronger than the average human. If your problem is that a halfling warrior with Str 16 just isn't jacked and kickass enough… yeah, that might just be a problem with a game system that makes ability scores too important. If the temptation to min/max is that baked into the system (and in the case of 5e, I see no evidence to the contrary), that's not a problem that's going to be solved by making the ability adjustments "float."</blockquote>

Verification