dcas
First Post
Oh, halflings, sure, one expects halflings to have some knowledge of animal husbandry.Whizbang Dustyboots said:<--- had a halfling shepherd as a major NPC in his Five Shires campaign![]()

Oh, halflings, sure, one expects halflings to have some knowledge of animal husbandry.Whizbang Dustyboots said:<--- had a halfling shepherd as a major NPC in his Five Shires campaign![]()
dcas said:That's not much different than the 3e mechanic of tying one's ability to cast high-level spells to one's Intelligence (or Wisdom) score, is it?
Yes, stronger fighters are better fighters, more intelligent wizards are better wizards, etc. It may not be the most realistic rule in the world but it works just fine in the game.
dcas said:That's not much different than the 3e mechanic of tying one's ability to cast high-level spells to one's Intelligence (or Wisdom) score, is it?
dcas said:Yes, stronger fighters are better fighters, more intelligent wizards are better wizards, etc. It may not be the most realistic rule in the world but it works just fine in the game.
RFisher said:That's just not true. A PCs effectiveness depends more upon the player than the numbers on the character sheet. The game is a lot more than just rolling dice. Otherwise, we'd be happy with computer games.
They is as Tol- er, Yondolla made them!dcas said:Oh, halflings, sure, one expects halflings to have some knowledge of animal husbandry.I wonder if it's genetic, though? or purely cultural?
It's a different game mechanic but the end result is the same: unless one has a high score in one's prime requisite, one won't be able to learn the most potent skills of one's class.billd91 said:It's actually quite a bit different. The intelligence limit for spells in 3E doesn't limit the character's ability to gain levels, improve skills, improve saves, or even gain the spell slots (which could be used to prep and cast lower-level spells).
I'm sorry, I thought your primary objection was that level advancement was tied to ability (in this case, Strength). I'm sorry that I misunderstood your post.molonel said:Except that it's tied to race, rather than ability. In 3rd Edition, a dwarven fighter, the veteran of a thousand campaigns, can rise to whatever level his DM feels like playing to. A human has different advantages. A human cleric with a 15 Wisdom is just as limited in his spellcasting as a dwarven cleric or an elven cleric or a halfling cleric.
Geoffrey said:And if you disagree with this, it illustrates why I don't allow non-human PCs in my campaign: because most everyone plays non-humans as humans with super-powers. I don't need that.
Geoffrey said:And if you disagree with this, it illustrates why I don't allow non-human PCs in my campaign: because most everyone plays non-humans as humans with super-powers. I don't need that.
Geoffrey said:I think racial class and level limits were a result of Gary being too liberal. Nevermind that in OD&D a dwarf (for example) can reach only 6th level as a fighter. The fact that a player could play a dwarf (or any other non-human) is actually lenient, and a concession that I do not make as Judge. I have never, not even once, seen a player play a non-human as anything other than as a human with cool powers. Most of this thread's conversation illustrates this problem. Many people have said, "It is illogical that demihuman race X can't be class Z, or advance to level Y in class Z." That's right: according to human logic. Maybe a human with a lifespan of 1,500 years might like nothing better than to rack up levels into the 100s. But that's just humans. Non-humans are, well, not human. They therefore don't think like humans. And if you disagree with this, it illustrates why I don't allow non-human PCs in my campaign: because most everyone plays non-humans as humans with super-powers. I don't need that.