Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 8045986">I'm back!  I know, you're so excited.Been thinking about this off-line, and have the following thoughts about some of the arguments being used:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Both sides have been trying to play it both ways on the value of the ASI.  That is, that +2 to a primary stat is important to one's own argument, but the other side is making too big a deal out of it.  So that argument is a dead-end and should be dropped.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">As mentioned previously, "If you are worried about optimizers, don't play with them" is analogous to "If you're worried about a super-strong gnome, ask your table not to do that."  So toss both those arguments.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The argument that most campaigns don't go past level 10, thus races without an ASI will never be as strong/smart/quick/charming as races that have them, and thus orc PCs really are stronger than gnome PCs is in conflict with the argument that a floating ASI  is "dissociative" because it makes it possible that a gnome will be strong, regardless of whether or not you actually play with a gnome who puts his ASI there.  Either the possibilities inherent in the rules are dissociative, regardless of whether or not the dissociative possibility is encountered at the table, or they are not.  Can't have it both ways.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Expanding on #3 above, it currently is possible for all races to achieve a 20 in any attribute.  So I find the position that allowing races to start out with equal scores would suddenly become dissociative to be highly...unconvincing.  If there were also racial maximums (which I'm not in favor of) I would see the argument.  But there aren't.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Regarding simulationism, if this were really simulationist, goliaths would have +6 strength (at least?) over halflings, not that piddling +2, that can disappear while leveling.  So it's not really simulationist; it's more of a symbolic nod to simulationism in earlier editions.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Points 4 and 5 in turn make me wonder if the passionate defense of racial ASIs has less to do with, well, actual game impact, and is really just more of an emotional line in the sand.  For somebody who strongly believes that attribute scores should reflect the lore differences the current system has got to be entirely unsatisfactory.  It doesn't really accomplish that goal at all.  And to get rid of that last, vestigal remnant of racial differences would be a blow, even if the effect at the table would be essentially invisible.  If this is going on, I am sympathetic.  I'm bummed that Paladins don't have to be Lawful Good and have really high prerequisites (even if that's terrible game design) so I get it.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">And, finally, I have to wonder if for some people (not everybody) the anti-racial-ASI thing feels like political correctness run amok.  First they get rid of gender differences, and now they want to get rid of racial differences!?!?!  What's next?  Re-education camps?  This occurs to me because I've been continually bewildered by all the statements to the effect of "Without racial ASIs we are all just playing humans with masks".  WTF?  As somebody who finds the non-ASI racial abilities to be more flavorful and evocative, that has made no sense to me.  So I gotta wonder if there's some other agenda lurking underneath those claims.  (Plus there's the assumption, that keeps reappearing, that those of us opposed to racial ASIs must be opposed to all racial abilities, when in fact for many of us the opposite is true; we want more non-ASI racial abilities.)</li> </ol></blockquote>

Verification