For a great many players, it simply doesn't feel good to be told that the cool idea for an offbeat, funky character you want to try is mechanically weaker than a more conventional build. It doesn't matter if nameless guys on the Internet tell you that this weakness doesn't matter and you should feel free to play your weak, offbeat character anyways. It still doesn't feel good. It's a pain point in the game's design, especially these days with issues of inequality so rife in popular media. Part of the job of game design is identifying and eliminating any pain points they can get away with.
On this though, I think one big thing to consider is the following (which is where I know I come from):
You aren't coming to the table with your glorious character idea and THEN the rules are saying, "oh wait. Yea, no. You can't do that. Sorry to $hit on your baby." The rules are and have been there from the get-go. You know exactly what you are getting when you come to the table and want to create a halfling barbarian whereas another player wants to create a half-orc barbarian. You know before you come up with the idea that you will be at a disadvantage by making that choice. Should you still choose to, that's on you. Not the designers in my opinion. Now, if Barbarian was the only class option and if all a halfling could play was a barbarian, now that's something else.
Just something random that involves stuff brought up in this thread:
Why do some people think that a halfling cannot be RIPPED! According to square cube law, (I am not an expert in any way on this) should be able to wield bigger weaponry than that of a Goliath.
You could also make a STRONK halfling by saying that they have more muscle mass than average of something like that. You could boost a creature’s dex, by saying something similar, however where their muscles are more like that of a snake where they can do quick movements with them because that’s how the creature has used their muscles and their body has adapted to that. Con? Make them healthy creatures or say they underwent training by testing their bodies to increase vitality or something like that. Int? Make the creature grow up in an environment where they used brains over other things. Wis? Make them naturally aware of their surroundings by having the creature grow up in a scenario where they had to have. Charisma? Similar arguenment to INT.
I do understand the arguement of “That’s why you choose what ability scores (not racial modifiers) go into specific categories, but the race just adds onto that of what you choose.” And that is a very solid argument, but hear this:
Why would your innate evolution kick in during your life when you are thrusted into scenarios where you don’t need them and never needed them. They would be suppressed and replaced by the traits that your body has adapted to to use. You could think of your ability scores you roll or use point buy to get as proficiencies you have acquired and has made you who you are primarily, and the ability score increase via race as what your body has adapted to it’s surroundings to obtain.
I’ve already stated my opinion previously in the thread if I will use this new system or not depending on if it’s balanced or not. I just wanted to point this out.
"Innate evolution".... what? Do you think people (real or fictional) are some sort of mutants whose powers suddenly awaken when 'thrust into scenarios?'
It does not work that way.... not even in fantasy, barring some major supernatural element (body is secretly the prison for a great cosmic beast or something)
Maybe I worded it a bit different then I meant. What I meant by innate evolution and “thrust into scenarios” is how in D&D terms, fantasy races meanwhile start out with their own unique quirks, if they have lived their lives and had a lifestyle where they did not need their traits, those traits old most likely be weaker than someone who actually uses those traits. The lifestyle results in...#1 different body growth (that is feasible for the species) if they started that lifestyle young which may result in differences, #2 a lack of innate traits by race if they are not used (in a realistic scenario they would retain traits like dark vision, but in this case and what wizards is adding as a mechanic, ability score changes, could be something realistic.). For example, why would an elf have innate dex if they are fat or something. Them being fat would suppress that innate trait they have. Or vice versa, if a kobold lived a lifestyle where he was a god like bodybuilder, then their muscles would adapt to that lifestyle allowing for further boosting of muscles that involve weightlifting, thus allowing for stuff like a strength score increase instead of a bad strength score change via racial modifiers.
Also no I did not mean that creature could suddenly A W A K E N. What I meant is slow gradual adaptation. You sir are putting words in my mouth.
"Innate evolution".... what? Do you think people (real or fictional) are some sort of mutants whose powers suddenly awaken when 'thrust into scenarios?'
That's a pretty accurate description of leveling up.
Most folks' primary objection to this system seems to be along the lines of "the MUNCHKINS will EAT OUR SOULS(!!)", or other complaints that min/maxers will Ruin Everything Forever(TM) by being given the option to broaden species traits out.
Query. ...why haven't they done so already, exactly?
For any given class there is already a bang-on perfect species. Playing a monk or a ranger? Run wood elf and enjoy bonus movement speed, perfect ability scores, and a suite of traits that flawlessly compliment your class. Playing a barbarian? Half-orc and goliath both offer exceptional synergies in different ways. Playing an artificer? Gnomes compliment your ability scores perfectly, they gain advantage on saves you're not proficient in to cover your weakness there, and they can ride their Steel Defenders (if a Battlesmith) to ignore their movement penalty entirely.
The munchkins already have everything they need to munchkin your eyeballs out. Munchkins don't care about being able to move species stats around because they don't give a rat's ass about story - they'll play whichever stat package meets their mechanical goals and give precisely zero ****s over the wrapper that stat package comes in.
This rule doesn't help munchkins for spit. It's for all the rest of the people who roll their eyes and have to tighten up their game to avoid letting the munchkin have his way and render everybody else meaningless during combat.
1. In any world, especially the real world, I completely stand by my statement where I have zero use of the concept that unqualified people's opinions supposedly have the same weight as an expert's in some field. That is just categorically untrue, and scientific advancement in history has NEVER worked that way. My views on this are not totalitarian. That is just how a sane world works.
2. Within the confines of the 5e D&D world, anyone who has played a lot, and DM'ed, can be considered highly knowledgeable about the subject, even an expert, and their opinion has weight in a discussion.They don't need to work for WOTC. As I said, D&D is on version 5, as opposed to version 1.5, which means developers DO screw up.
However, in an Internet forum, it is impossible to prove someone's bonafides. So their opinions must be at the very least, tolerated and given weight, until they prove they don't grasp the game (eg. Dwarves are Small creatures).
Swapping out ability score increases in terms of the PHB races would barely effect anything in terms of stuff. Yes that unusual race/class combo may be better, but that diversified possible good builds, but does not create overpowered ones. The only things I could think of that may be exploited out of the possibility of switching out stats for others are:
-Dragonborn breath weapons are SLIGHTLY better with better con scores due to DCs, which lemme say that breath weapon is already underpowered so eh, it’s LITERALLY NOTHING.
-Savage attacks from half orc may be good with dexterity based ability scores due to slightly higher crit chances, but still it’s only an extra 1/2 chance of crit while dual wielding so this should barely effect the game.
-Elf subrace spellcasting may be better by very little with the potential chance of being able to replace that +2 in dex with a +2 in something else. But still the sub races with the spellcasting provide boosts that already boost the spellcasting, and I doubt that with the new system you could cram all racial ability score increases into one score.
AKA: This shouldn’t create OP MIN MAX BUILD MUST BAN, but rather create more diversity in stronger builds.
In my opinion the balancing worries shouldn’t be about OP builds but by making certain races better than others, which then will cause problems, and for people to yell at min makers when they play SUPER OP RACE MUST BAN!
1. In any world, especially the real world, I completely stand by my statement where I have zero use of the concept that unqualified people's opinions supposedly have the same weight as an expert's in some field. That is just categorically untrue, and scientific advancement in history has NEVER worked that way. My views on this are not totalitarian. That is just how a sane world works.
2. Within the confines of the 5e D&D world, anyone who has played a lot, and DM'ed, can be considered highly knowledgeable about the subject, even an expert, and their opinion has weight in a discussion.They don't need to work for WOTC. As I said, D&D is on version 5, as opposed to version 1.5, which means developers DO screw up.
However, in an Internet forum, it is impossible to prove someone's bonafides. So their opinions must be at the very least, tolerated and given weight, until they prove they don't grasp the game (eg. Dwarves are Small creatures).
In a STEM field, you are absolutely correct. A layperson's opinion is worth the napkin it's scrawled on, provided that layperson is attempting to feign knowledge they don't have. Even in STEM fields, opinions can reveal perceptions and people's perceptions can be important. Not to mention the entire idea of 'from the mouth of babes', wherein someone suggests something "impossible" because they're not educated enough to know it's impossible, only to jog the brains of the experts out of well-worn ruts of conventional expertise and get them to re-evaluate the problem. In explaining why something is 'impossible' to the layperson, the expert makes a realize that she has forgotten something, or recent advances have made conventional wisdom suspect or irrelevant.
In an entertainment field such as game design? People's perceptions are the field. It doesn't matter how mechanically clever or brilliant your game's design is if nobody finds it fun, engaging, or worthwhile. Game design courses are not about teaching people How To Game, they're about teaching the psychology of gaming and why people tend to have fun with certain types of game. A Professionally Trained Game Designer is much closer to a psychologist than she is to an engineer. If one does not understand people, one cannot appeal to them, nor create games that engage them. A layperson may not understand nuances and intricacies of psychology, but excuse me, Vince - everybody has extensive experience with People.
Now. Before you tell me to sod off and keep my unprofessional design opinions to myself for a third or fourth time: I have been playing steadily for two and a half years, rarely missing a week, and have spent the last year of that time running a campaign set (unfortunately) in the absolute dumpster fire of a book Ghosts of Saltmarsh. That campaign is sunsetting soon, but I ran it from 3rd to 8th level with any number of players ranging between 4 and 7, depending on who was In or Out on a given week. By your explicit standards laid out above, that is enough to qualify me as an 'Expert'. So kindly lay off and cease assaulting my Experience As A Game Designer(TM), because I can guarantee you don't have any more formal training than I do, possibly a little less given some of the courses I took in my college days, and frankly I would be absolutely astonished if you could peer deeper into the guts of this or any other game than I could given equivalent time to familiarize myself with its systems.
So. Now that that is settled.
*Flat stare*
Let's get back to actual rules discussion, shall we?
1. In any world, especially the real world, I completely stand by my statement where I have zero use of the concept that unqualified people's opinions supposedly have the same weight as an expert's in some field. That is just categorically untrue, and scientific advancement in history has NEVER worked that way. My views on this are not totalitarian. That is just how a sane world works.
2. Within the confines of the 5e D&D world, anyone who has played a lot, and DM'ed, can be considered highly knowledgeable about the subject, even an expert, and their opinion has weight in a discussion.They don't need to work for WOTC. As I said, D&D is on version 5, as opposed to version 1.5, which means developers DO screw up.
However, in an Internet forum, it is impossible to prove someone's bonafides. So their opinions must be at the very least, tolerated and given weight, until they prove they don't grasp the game (eg. Dwarves are Small creatures).
In a STEM field, you are absolutely correct. A layperson's opinion is worth the napkin it's scrawled on, provided that layperson is attempting to feign knowledge they don't have. Even in STEM fields, opinions can reveal perceptions and people's perceptions can be important. Not to mention the entire idea of 'from the mouth of babes', wherein someone suggests something "impossible" because they're not educated enough to know it's impossible, only to jog the brains of the experts out of well-worn ruts of conventional expertise and get them to re-evaluate the problem. In explaining why something is 'impossible' to the layperson, the expert makes a realize that she has forgotten something, or recent advances have made conventional wisdom suspect or irrelevant.
In an entertainment field such as game design? People's perceptions are the field. It doesn't matter how mechanically clever or brilliant your game's design is if nobody finds it fun, engaging, or worthwhile. Game design courses are not about teaching people How To Game, they're about teaching the psychology of gaming and why people tend to have fun with certain types of game. A Professionally Trained Game Designer is much closer to a psychologist than she is to an engineer. If one does not understand people, one cannot appeal to them, nor create games that engage them. A layperson may not understand nuances and intricacies of psychology, but excuse me, Vince - everybody has extensive experience with People.
Now. Before you tell me to sod off and keep my unprofessional design opinions to myself for a third or fourth time: I have been playing steadily for two and a half years, rarely missing a week, and have spent the last year of that time running a campaign set (unfortunately) in the absolute dumpster fire of a book Ghosts of Saltmarsh. That campaign is sunsetting soon, but I ran it from 3rd to 8th level with any number of players ranging between 4 and 7, depending on who was In or Out on a given week. By your explicit standards laid out above, that is enough to qualify me as an 'Expert'. So kindly lay off and cease assaulting my Experience As A Game Designer(TM), because I can guarantee you don't have any more formal training than I do, possibly a little less given some of the courses I took in my college days, and frankly I would be absolutely astonished if you could peer deeper into the guts of this or any other game than I could given equivalent time to familiarize myself with its systems.
So. Now that that is settled.
*Flat stare*
Let's get back to actual rules discussion, shall we?
Wow...you might want to reread my posts and carefully, and that 2nd point I made in my most recent post. I may think your ideas on the game are horribly wrong, but I never suggested you don't have a grasp of the game. I don't know you well enough to make that judgement, nor will I ever you well enough. You don't have to provide any bonafides, because they are pointless. And by that, I mean ANY person's comments on their game experience (bonafides) are equally worthless. Only what they post about the game's mechanics, at least in this thread, have merit, since they must stand on their own.
You clearly don’t understand what bigotry is. I can disagree with you without it being bigotry. Otherwise all arguments are bigotry including yours. Since you said to Google it, the definition is: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
Just because I disagree or stand up for my beliefs doesn’t mean I’m intolerant of you. It just means I choose to hold on to my beliefs.
I'm not intolerant of others based on their opinions of what makes the game fun, but people who hate minmaxers are. Therefore, if you hate people who like playing the game differently from you, you're a bigot. If you don't hate them, you're not a bigot. You choose, bigot or not bigot. I don't hate non-powergamers, but I can't say that about the majority of people who are non-powergamers about powergamers.
You can disagree about something without it being bigotry, but you are a bigot if you think that this is "pandering to munchkins", which was my point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
@Yurei: I would say that within the confines of D&D, anyone who has played for a length of time, and DM"ed, IS considered an expert on the mechanics of the game. And yes, in the real world, unless you are an expert in a field, your opinion is worthless.
Inside the confines of D&D, there are ample cases of the designers coming up with awful ideas. The very fact that the game is on 5th edition is proof of that.
I've only been playing D&D for 3 years, and D&D 5e is the only TTRPG that I've ever played. I'm an expert at 5E D&D mechanics, and I don't need 10,000 hours to become one. That's the way my brain works, and because I'm a quick learner, that does not make my opinion worthless.
Fixed that for you.
I guess that's technically correct, but that doesn't invalidate anything I said. D&D is in 5e right now.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Most folks' primary objection to this system seems to be along the lines of "the MUNCHKINS will EAT OUR SOULS(!!)", or other complaints that min/maxers will Ruin Everything Forever(TM) by being given the option to broaden species traits out.
Actually, I think most of us objecting to the new system are concerned that it will destroy the uniqueness of the different species, and make them less distinct from one another. I'm pretty sure I haven't read anyone talking about min-maxers "ruining the game."
I think where min-maxers even come into the argument is that they are the ones (as only a min-maxer would raise this objection) claiming that the character will be practically unplayable if the player cannot put the +2 stat bonus into the prime stat for the chosen class. The statement that a wizard with a 15 stat instead of a 17 stat in intelligence at level 1 would be less effective by a certain percentage (what was the number? 7-9% or something?) is an implicitly min-maxer argument. And it was made in support of the new system, not in opposition to it.
I haven't seen anyone claiming that min-maxers are the BBEGs of the D&D world -- rather, what I and some others have said is that the argument that a character who can't put the +2 into the prime stat because of species choice would lose a single-digit amount of % effectiveness under very specific circumstances (nearly always: combat) does not sway us. Indeed, I would argue that small % loss to effectiveness is a small price to pay for keeping the different species distinct and recognizable from one another in both statistical, as well as cosmetic, terms.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I personally have the concern that unique features and abilities of each race will be the next on the chopping block after stats, if stats is changed because once you go down the rabbit hole of "it's not fair" then everything becomes fair game.
On par with other potential characters. Whether other players min/max or not. Or are you saying that if others are playing characters you consider weaker, that you would play a weaker character so they would feel better or something? I am arguing that "Good" depends on what you do with what you have as much or more than what you have.
Should a powergamer play a less powerful character if the other characters are less powerful? No. Should they play a less powerful character if the other characters are having less fun due to my playing powerfully? Yes, I am the nice type of powergamer who will play a subpar character if my ability to help them in combat makes them feel bad. Also, what you do with what you have doesn't make much sense to me, can you rephrase that?
And newer players and DM's know their limits how, exactly? Again, you are insisting that it is fine because it is fine for experienced DM's. But again, experienced DM's do not need any formal rule to decide to allow any such thing. If you do not like it, convince your DM not to use said limits. If you cannot convince your DM, then you are trying to impose your preferences on them.
They know their limits the way literally everyone else does, by messing up and taking on too much. It is fine because not every single part of the game has to be designed for new players (i.e. Spellcasting). Again, stop saying that it's not needed because we're intelligent enough to make it as a homebrew rule. I've provided reasons multiple times (and so have many) why it is good to have it as a variant rule in the books. Also, obviously don't try to convince your DM to use this if they say that they won't except it. That's being a dick, and no one has suggested doing that.
Whose definition of 'wrong' are you using there? Yours or mine? And either way, wrong in what way, exactly? The rules give full permission to homebrew or alter the rules to fit any particular DM's campaign preference. And no one has said anyone has a right to force any playstyle on to you. However, you do not have the right to force any given play style on any DM either. Nor as a DM do you have any right to force players to stick around for your campaign. There is no forcing of anyone.
I don't know what you mean about "wrong", can you clarify.
You're saying that I'm trying to force my playstyle on a DM? I have done no such thing, and you don't know me. No one has the right to force a playstyle on anyone, which is the point of my original post! This rule isn't forced on anyone, and hurts no one, and helps everyone who wants to use it.
And still have no clue where you are coming from tossing the word 'bigot' around. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Okay, maybe I didn't say it clear enough, because everyone is misunderstanding me. You're a bigot if you think that this is "pandering to munchkins" is what I meant.
I detailed in my original post why that is, but most simply, because believing that this is pandering to munchkins means that you think powergaming is wrong, which is being intolerant of another opinion. It's not a matter of debate, if you think that powergamers are playing the game incorrectly or that they don't deserve even variant mechanics in the games and make a fuss out of it, you are a bigot.
That's a very strange and very strong use of the word bigot and confuses the meaning.
I'm not sure the best term to use, but don't use bigot. I didn't realise what you meant about it until now. Considering quite a number of people experience actual bigotry practically every day of their life, I wouldn't dilute the term like that.
That's a very strange and very strong use of the word bigot and confuses the meaning.
I'm not sure the best term to use, but don't use bigot. I didn't realise what you meant about it until now. Considering quite a number of people experience actual bigotry practically every day of their life, I wouldn't dilute the term like that.
The definition I find when I search "definition of bigotry" is "intolerance towards people who have different opinions than you."
Based on that definition, I think it fits well in this circumstance. This is not anywhere near real bigotry that people are affected by daily, but it still falls under the umbrella.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
As for the odd anti-communist comments, why on Earth would you make that assumption? China, the posterchild for communism (in before 'No True Scotsman' goalpost-moving) hosted a Paralympics just 12 years ago, and they value and support their disabled athletes so well that they have won the Paralympics medal table by a huge margin every single time since 2004!
China is a socialist democracy, actually. In other words, a modernized communism which only upholds certain benefits of individualism (such as the Paralympics) because it is competition with the democratic West.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hi there! I'm a Christian musician based in Canada :)
That's a very strange and very strong use of the word bigot and confuses the meaning.
I'm not sure the best term to use, but don't use bigot. I didn't realise what you meant about it until now. Considering quite a number of people experience actual bigotry practically every day of their life, I wouldn't dilute the term like that.
The definition I find when I search "definition of bigotry" is "intolerance towards people who have different opinions than you."
Based on that definition, I think it fits well in this circumstance. This is not anywhere near real bigotry that people are affected by daily, but it still falls under the umbrella.
Disagreeing =/= Intolerance
Just because you see someone as having a different opinion than you does not make them a bigot simply because they did not magically agree after you stated your point. I guess by your use of the word everyone is a bigot including yourself since you disagree on the new rules and therefore are intolerant of the people who don't like the new rules.
But that also ignores the historical use of the word, and purposefully conflates and feigns "innocence" for the purpose of getting a row out of the people you disagree with. If you didn't seriously want to upset people you would not have said "Those that disagree are bigots" you are purposefully misusing a word just to piss people off.
That's a very strange and very strong use of the word bigot and confuses the meaning.
I'm not sure the best term to use, but don't use bigot. I didn't realise what you meant about it until now. Considering quite a number of people experience actual bigotry practically every day of their life, I wouldn't dilute the term like that.
The definition I find when I search "definition of bigotry" is "intolerance towards people who have different opinions than you."
Based on that definition, I think it fits well in this circumstance. This is not anywhere near real bigotry that people are affected by daily, but it still falls under the umbrella.
Disagreeing =/= Intolerance
Just because you see someone as having a different opinion than you does not make them a bigot simply because they did not magically agree after you stated your point. I guess by your use of the word everyone is a bigot including yourself since you disagree on the new rules and therefore are intolerant of the people who don't like the new rules.
But that also ignores the historical use of the word, and purposefully conflates and feigns "innocence" for the purpose of getting a row out of the people you disagree with. If you didn't seriously want to upset people you would not have said "Those that disagree are bigots" you are purposefully misusing a word just to piss people off.
fortunately it didn't really work.
I never used it that way. I did not say, "you are bigots if you disagree with me" I am saying, "You are bigots if you think this is 'pandering to powergamers/munchkins", as I said 3 times above.
It is bigotry to think another person's playstyle is bad/wrong/lesser than your own if they're still having fun, which is what my original post was detailing. Freaking read my posts, please, if you're going to respond to them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
On this though, I think one big thing to consider is the following (which is where I know I come from):
You aren't coming to the table with your glorious character idea and THEN the rules are saying, "oh wait. Yea, no. You can't do that. Sorry to $hit on your baby." The rules are and have been there from the get-go. You know exactly what you are getting when you come to the table and want to create a halfling barbarian whereas another player wants to create a half-orc barbarian. You know before you come up with the idea that you will be at a disadvantage by making that choice. Should you still choose to, that's on you. Not the designers in my opinion. Now, if Barbarian was the only class option and if all a halfling could play was a barbarian, now that's something else.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
Maybe I worded it a bit different then I meant. What I meant by innate evolution and “thrust into scenarios” is how in D&D terms, fantasy races meanwhile start out with their own unique quirks, if they have lived their lives and had a lifestyle where they did not need their traits, those traits old most likely be weaker than someone who actually uses those traits. The lifestyle results in...#1 different body growth (that is feasible for the species) if they started that lifestyle young which may result in differences, #2 a lack of innate traits by race if they are not used (in a realistic scenario they would retain traits like dark vision, but in this case and what wizards is adding as a mechanic, ability score changes, could be something realistic.). For example, why would an elf have innate dex if they are fat or something. Them being fat would suppress that innate trait they have. Or vice versa, if a kobold lived a lifestyle where he was a god like bodybuilder, then their muscles would adapt to that lifestyle allowing for further boosting of muscles that involve weightlifting, thus allowing for stuff like a strength score increase instead of a bad strength score change via racial modifiers.
Also no I did not mean that creature could suddenly A W A K E N. What I meant is slow gradual adaptation. You sir are putting words in my mouth.
That's a pretty accurate description of leveling up.
Ye know? It occurs to me.
Most folks' primary objection to this system seems to be along the lines of "the MUNCHKINS will EAT OUR SOULS(!!)", or other complaints that min/maxers will Ruin Everything Forever(TM) by being given the option to broaden species traits out.
Query. ...why haven't they done so already, exactly?
For any given class there is already a bang-on perfect species. Playing a monk or a ranger? Run wood elf and enjoy bonus movement speed, perfect ability scores, and a suite of traits that flawlessly compliment your class. Playing a barbarian? Half-orc and goliath both offer exceptional synergies in different ways. Playing an artificer? Gnomes compliment your ability scores perfectly, they gain advantage on saves you're not proficient in to cover your weakness there, and they can ride their Steel Defenders (if a Battlesmith) to ignore their movement penalty entirely.
The munchkins already have everything they need to munchkin your eyeballs out. Munchkins don't care about being able to move species stats around because they don't give a rat's ass about story - they'll play whichever stat package meets their mechanical goals and give precisely zero ****s over the wrapper that stat package comes in.
This rule doesn't help munchkins for spit. It's for all the rest of the people who roll their eyes and have to tighten up their game to avoid letting the munchkin have his way and render everybody else meaningless during combat.
Please do not contact or message me.
Clearly, people are interpreting me incorrectly.
1. In any world, especially the real world, I completely stand by my statement where I have zero use of the concept that unqualified people's opinions supposedly have the same weight as an expert's in some field. That is just categorically untrue, and scientific advancement in history has NEVER worked that way. My views on this are not totalitarian. That is just how a sane world works.
2. Within the confines of the 5e D&D world, anyone who has played a lot, and DM'ed, can be considered highly knowledgeable about the subject, even an expert, and their opinion has weight in a discussion.They don't need to work for WOTC. As I said, D&D is on version 5, as opposed to version 1.5, which means developers DO screw up.
However, in an Internet forum, it is impossible to prove someone's bonafides. So their opinions must be at the very least, tolerated and given weight, until they prove they don't grasp the game (eg. Dwarves are Small creatures).
This thread is stupid. Platitudes about game balance don't have any value because we don't even know how the new rules will look.
I just realized something.
Yes another random fact:
Swapping out ability score increases in terms of the PHB races would barely effect anything in terms of stuff. Yes that unusual race/class combo may be better, but that diversified possible good builds, but does not create overpowered ones. The only things I could think of that may be exploited out of the possibility of switching out stats for others are:
-Dragonborn breath weapons are SLIGHTLY better with better con scores due to DCs, which lemme say that breath weapon is already underpowered so eh, it’s LITERALLY NOTHING.
-Savage attacks from half orc may be good with dexterity based ability scores due to slightly higher crit chances, but still it’s only an extra 1/2 chance of crit while dual wielding so this should barely effect the game.
-Elf subrace spellcasting may be better by very little with the potential chance of being able to replace that +2 in dex with a +2 in something else. But still the sub races with the spellcasting provide boosts that already boost the spellcasting, and I doubt that with the new system you could cram all racial ability score increases into one score.
AKA: This shouldn’t create OP MIN MAX BUILD MUST BAN, but rather create more diversity in stronger builds.
In my opinion the balancing worries shouldn’t be about OP builds but by making certain races better than others, which then will cause problems, and for people to yell at min makers when they play SUPER OP RACE MUST BAN!
In a STEM field, you are absolutely correct. A layperson's opinion is worth the napkin it's scrawled on, provided that layperson is attempting to feign knowledge they don't have. Even in STEM fields, opinions can reveal perceptions and people's perceptions can be important. Not to mention the entire idea of 'from the mouth of babes', wherein someone suggests something "impossible" because they're not educated enough to know it's impossible, only to jog the brains of the experts out of well-worn ruts of conventional expertise and get them to re-evaluate the problem. In explaining why something is 'impossible' to the layperson, the expert makes a realize that she has forgotten something, or recent advances have made conventional wisdom suspect or irrelevant.
In an entertainment field such as game design? People's perceptions are the field. It doesn't matter how mechanically clever or brilliant your game's design is if nobody finds it fun, engaging, or worthwhile. Game design courses are not about teaching people How To Game, they're about teaching the psychology of gaming and why people tend to have fun with certain types of game. A Professionally Trained Game Designer is much closer to a psychologist than she is to an engineer. If one does not understand people, one cannot appeal to them, nor create games that engage them. A layperson may not understand nuances and intricacies of psychology, but excuse me, Vince - everybody has extensive experience with People.
Now. Before you tell me to sod off and keep my unprofessional design opinions to myself for a third or fourth time: I have been playing steadily for two and a half years, rarely missing a week, and have spent the last year of that time running a campaign set (unfortunately) in the absolute dumpster fire of a book Ghosts of Saltmarsh. That campaign is sunsetting soon, but I ran it from 3rd to 8th level with any number of players ranging between 4 and 7, depending on who was In or Out on a given week. By your explicit standards laid out above, that is enough to qualify me as an 'Expert'. So kindly lay off and cease assaulting my Experience As A Game Designer(TM), because I can guarantee you don't have any more formal training than I do, possibly a little less given some of the courses I took in my college days, and frankly I would be absolutely astonished if you could peer deeper into the guts of this or any other game than I could given equivalent time to familiarize myself with its systems.
So. Now that that is settled.
*Flat stare*
Let's get back to actual rules discussion, shall we?
Please do not contact or message me.
Wow...you might want to reread my posts and carefully, and that 2nd point I made in my most recent post. I may think your ideas on the game are horribly wrong, but I never suggested you don't have a grasp of the game. I don't know you well enough to make that judgement, nor will I ever you well enough. You don't have to provide any bonafides, because they are pointless. And by that, I mean ANY person's comments on their game experience (bonafides) are equally worthless. Only what they post about the game's mechanics, at least in this thread, have merit, since they must stand on their own.
Stop reading more into my posts than is there.
I'm not intolerant of others based on their opinions of what makes the game fun, but people who hate minmaxers are. Therefore, if you hate people who like playing the game differently from you, you're a bigot. If you don't hate them, you're not a bigot. You choose, bigot or not bigot. I don't hate non-powergamers, but I can't say that about the majority of people who are non-powergamers about powergamers.
You can disagree about something without it being bigotry, but you are a bigot if you think that this is "pandering to munchkins", which was my point.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I guess that's technically correct, but that doesn't invalidate anything I said. D&D is in 5e right now.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Actually, I think most of us objecting to the new system are concerned that it will destroy the uniqueness of the different species, and make them less distinct from one another. I'm pretty sure I haven't read anyone talking about min-maxers "ruining the game."
I think where min-maxers even come into the argument is that they are the ones (as only a min-maxer would raise this objection) claiming that the character will be practically unplayable if the player cannot put the +2 stat bonus into the prime stat for the chosen class. The statement that a wizard with a 15 stat instead of a 17 stat in intelligence at level 1 would be less effective by a certain percentage (what was the number? 7-9% or something?) is an implicitly min-maxer argument. And it was made in support of the new system, not in opposition to it.
I haven't seen anyone claiming that min-maxers are the BBEGs of the D&D world -- rather, what I and some others have said is that the argument that a character who can't put the +2 into the prime stat because of species choice would lose a single-digit amount of % effectiveness under very specific circumstances (nearly always: combat) does not sway us. Indeed, I would argue that small % loss to effectiveness is a small price to pay for keeping the different species distinct and recognizable from one another in both statistical, as well as cosmetic, terms.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I personally have the concern that unique features and abilities of each race will be the next on the chopping block after stats, if stats is changed because once you go down the rabbit hole of "it's not fair" then everything becomes fair game.
Should a powergamer play a less powerful character if the other characters are less powerful? No. Should they play a less powerful character if the other characters are having less fun due to my playing powerfully? Yes, I am the nice type of powergamer who will play a subpar character if my ability to help them in combat makes them feel bad. Also, what you do with what you have doesn't make much sense to me, can you rephrase that?
They know their limits the way literally everyone else does, by messing up and taking on too much. It is fine because not every single part of the game has to be designed for new players (i.e. Spellcasting). Again, stop saying that it's not needed because we're intelligent enough to make it as a homebrew rule. I've provided reasons multiple times (and so have many) why it is good to have it as a variant rule in the books. Also, obviously don't try to convince your DM to use this if they say that they won't except it. That's being a dick, and no one has suggested doing that.
I don't know what you mean about "wrong", can you clarify.
You're saying that I'm trying to force my playstyle on a DM? I have done no such thing, and you don't know me. No one has the right to force a playstyle on anyone, which is the point of my original post! This rule isn't forced on anyone, and hurts no one, and helps everyone who wants to use it.
Okay, maybe I didn't say it clear enough, because everyone is misunderstanding me. You're a bigot if you think that this is "pandering to munchkins" is what I meant.
I detailed in my original post why that is, but most simply, because believing that this is pandering to munchkins means that you think powergaming is wrong, which is being intolerant of another opinion. It's not a matter of debate, if you think that powergamers are playing the game incorrectly or that they don't deserve even variant mechanics in the games and make a fuss out of it, you are a bigot.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
That's a very strange and very strong use of the word bigot and confuses the meaning.
I'm not sure the best term to use, but don't use bigot. I didn't realise what you meant about it until now. Considering quite a number of people experience actual bigotry practically every day of their life, I wouldn't dilute the term like that.
I for one am unsubscribing from this thread. Way too much hostile energy for a Thursday evening....
Hi there! I'm a Christian musician based in Canada :)
The definition I find when I search "definition of bigotry" is "intolerance towards people who have different opinions than you."
Based on that definition, I think it fits well in this circumstance. This is not anywhere near real bigotry that people are affected by daily, but it still falls under the umbrella.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
China is a socialist democracy, actually. In other words, a modernized communism which only upholds certain benefits of individualism (such as the Paralympics) because it is competition with the democratic West.
Hi there! I'm a Christian musician based in Canada :)
Disagreeing =/= Intolerance
Just because you see someone as having a different opinion than you does not make them a bigot simply because they did not magically agree after you stated your point. I guess by your use of the word everyone is a bigot including yourself since you disagree on the new rules and therefore are intolerant of the people who don't like the new rules.
But that also ignores the historical use of the word, and purposefully conflates and feigns "innocence" for the purpose of getting a row out of the people you disagree with. If you didn't seriously want to upset people you would not have said "Those that disagree are bigots" you are purposefully misusing a word just to piss people off.
fortunately it didn't really work.
I never used it that way. I did not say, "you are bigots if you disagree with me" I am saying, "You are bigots if you think this is 'pandering to powergamers/munchkins", as I said 3 times above.
It is bigotry to think another person's playstyle is bad/wrong/lesser than your own if they're still having fun, which is what my original post was detailing. Freaking read my posts, please, if you're going to respond to them.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms