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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9363185" data-attributes="member: 6877472">Sure for example, many years ago, I was making custom lineages for a Pathfinder 1e game.  I quickly ran into the problem that a race with advantages in combat wouldn't be taken by someone who wants to play a spellcaster, and vice versa.  If you have a strength bonus or the ability to wield oversized weapons, that's not useful for a Wizard.  And if you have a penalty to Intelligence, that's even worse!Like take 3.Xe Orcs, who have +4 Strength, but -2 to Intelligence and Charisma.  We're told that Orcs have shamans, witch doctors, and the like, but no PC is going to play one, and by the rules, every Orc is bad at these things (they might be ok as Clerics if they don't have uses for Turn attempts, but oh wait, it turned out that Turn Attempts were worth their weight in gold in 3.5!).And some orcs should be good casters or rogues or farmers or whatnot.  I ended up taking the 4e approach and having flexible stat arrays (like in 4e, all Halflings have +2 Dex, but you can have either +2 Con or +2 Charisma), but in the end it didn't really matter- as usual, the players just zeroed in on that cross-section of "cool ability" and "best stat bonus" streets, lol.Which is pretty much what I expect to happen in a world of flexible ASI's.  People are still most likely to play a race that supports what class they were going to play.  The majority of Orcs probably won't be Wizards, even if you can have +2 Int.  I mean, in Pathfinder 1e, Half-Orcs had a +2 in any stat they wanted, but I'm pretty sure I'm one of the few people who saw that and said "wow, I can be an Orc Sorcerer!", lol.</blockquote>

Verification