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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8044161" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Nope. I have literally never seen that anywhere. And I doubt I ever would. Actually, on halflings, if people are expecting hobbits, then they wouldn't be shocked at all since most hobbits are.... rotund. We've actually far more run into things like "Why isn't your ranger that strong" or "why doesn't your cleric know more about religion".Lucky is fine, but rerolling ones rarely comes up, especially for a class like wizard who forces saves instead of rolling to attackHiding behind people requires stealth, not a common proficiency for wizards. Also, it would take your action in combat (meaning you didn't do anything else, like cast a spell), and doesn't work if the other person moves away (which has come up for our halfling rogue) Nice try in the better con for Stout, Rock Gnome does the same thing. So, equal concentration and HP, but worse INT. Dex is a useful stat, but wizards honestly need it less than a lot of other classes, and Forest Gnome can cover their dex needs if they want to go that route. So, not so much.You have the lowest AC and HP in the game, you never want to be in grapple situations. Keeping their feat I assume from being knocked prone, which sounds like being in melee, my wizard doesn't want that. Also, damage resistance is nice. I can be a tiefling and have that, plus actual Intelligence bonuses. Breath Weapon is an extra Spell? So is having actual spells and a cantrip from Tielfings. And, if you use the Mordenkainen Tielfings, you have a lot of options to choose from including Baalzebul giving a free Crown of Madness and Ray of Sickness. Much better than the breath weapon. So again, seems like it is just generally a bad choice.Sure, feats and spell choice can make a lot of difference. But that is a "player skill" arena, and if you are making good choices, you would still be making them with a different INT score, except, you'd be better at all the wizard stuff you want to do.I fundamentally disagree with you. You seem to be acting like these people are some sort of problem than needs to be fixed. They aren't. The game rewards optimization, if you want it to stop doing that, you have to change the game, not kick out everyone who optimizes. I mean, we aren't talking something crazy like Hexblade paladins or something. We are talking matching Racial bonus to class needs. This is basic basic stuff.You mean the most important stat for that class? The one the book calls out that you should probably put your highest number into? The one that determines how good they are at the main jobs of that class? To make a car analogy, that's like saying to ignore the fact that you have threadbare tires and focus on the fact that you have a good AC unit. Sure, AC is important for a car, but the tires are kind of how I get where I'm going.But, you never see those class amongst those races. I have never once seen someone play them. They aren't recommended, they aren't talked about, they only exist because, well, logically they have to. But if I use RAW PHB creation to stat them out, they are weaker than they should be. And, maybe for an NPC, that is fine. I can do whatever I want for NPCs, but why are players being shown that these are not the choices they should be making? And to bring this back to the original start of our dicussion, you want to stop "cookie cutter" builds. But you are focusing on "I don't want all wizards to have 16 INT at level 1, I want some to have 15 or 14" which is a boring mechanical difference that will fade away from people's minds, and ignoring that racial ASIs mean that you aren't seeing wizards with different racial traits, which would be noticeable and dynamic differences between them.You did imply that. He would also say no. He would tell us it is something we have never seen before and we don't know what it can do. He also despises the insight skill and tells people constantly that if we use it, we won't learn anything, because we can't logically figure things out about people we've only known for a few hours.See the problem with that fighter example is you've now put him in a catch-22If he stays quite and lets the Bard talk, he loses the respect of the captain. But, the Bard's concept is talking to people and using the persuasion skill. If he talks, since he has a total mod of +0 (low charisma and no prof is not uncommon for a fighter) if the DM calls for a roll, he likely fails and ruins the party's chances.So, the party and the fighter want him to be quiet, and not risk a roll he is likely to fail (even a DC 10 is a 50/50 shot with a +0) but the DM is penalizing him for playing smart at the meta level. Now, I'm sure we can talk about all sorts of things the DM can do, advantage for being a fighter, not calling for a roll if the fighter is clever OOC, ect. But the point is, all of that is again, DM dependent. You can't rely on that being the case, you can rely on the fact that the fighter is going to roll an attack roll during the campaign.I don't understand how they need to "look" for them. It is kind of blatant to go to the site, pull up the "races" tab and see which races have a +2 Dex, then think about all the ways you can attack with Dex. I don't think you need to build a lot of different characters to prove that, and even if you did, they would also build more "oddball" options, to test those, so they likely balance out.</blockquote>

Verification