But I agree with the way we should be looking at the diversity in ASI scores for d&d playable characters. IT is not that other species can't be a barb, it is just that some species if chosen get a miniscule leg up in that class. Nothing wrong with that.
It's actually even less significant than that -- they just get an "early lead." Literally everyone can hit 20 from 15 in at most 12 levels, so every single character can get to 20 in their prime stat eventually. it takes a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 3 stat bumps to get there, so the difference between the STR of a halfling fighter and a half-orc fighter would be down to 1 (19 vs 20) by level 8 and 0 at level 12.
What this is saying is that the half-orc starts out ahead because he has some natural gifts, but that long periods of training can overcome that difference, so that by the time they are 12th level, they are at parity. This mimics the real world pretty well -- in the real world, someone with a natural gift may excel over someone without on day 1 of doing something, but after years, those natural gifts don't matter as much as all the training you put into it. This is why in the real world, lots of people who are NOT naturals at something but have to do that something for a long time anyway, can be really, really good at it. Better than a "natural" who never trained.
But if you compare the "natural" to the one who isn't on day 1, the natural will be better.
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.
But I agree with the way we should be looking at the diversity in ASI scores for d&d playable characters. IT is not that other species can't be a barb, it is just that some species if chosen get a miniscule leg up in that class. Nothing wrong with that.
It's actually even less significant than that -- they just get an "early lead." Literally everyone can hit 20 from 15 in at most 12 levels, so every single character can get to 20 in their prime stat eventually. it takes a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 3 stat bumps to get there, so the difference between the STR of a halfling fighter and a half-orc fighter would be down to 1 (19 vs 20) by level 8 and 0 at level 12.
What this is saying is that the half-orc starts out ahead because he has some natural gifts, but that long periods of training can overcome that difference, so that by the time they are 12th level, they are at parity. This mimics the real world pretty well -- in the real world, someone with a natural gift may excel over someone without on day 1 of doing something, but after years, those natural gifts don't matter as much as all the training you put into it. This is why in the real world, lots of people who are NOT naturals at something but have to do that something for a long time anyway, can be really, really good at it. Better than a "natural" who never trained.
But if you compare the "natural" to the one who isn't on day 1, the natural will be better.
the diffrence however is much greater for monks, as they are dependent on two sepperate abillity scores for everything, starting at 14 armor class instead of 16 becuase you have no natural asi's to ether of those scores, like shure if you take no feats you can try and bump wis and dex up to 16 each so you have 16 AC but that 10% difference is still gonna be staggering for your first three level
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
The feats competing for ability score increases makes the issue so much worse than it would be otherwise. Imo feats should be separated completely from ASIs, and characters automatically get them as they level up.
Apart from the odd few powerful feats, most are basically flavor, and you have to choose between making the character more interesting, or making them functional.
The feats competing for ability score increases makes the issue so much worse than it would be otherwise. Imo feats should be separated completely from ASIs, and characters automatically get them as they level up.
Apart from the odd few powerful feats, most are basically flavor, and you have to choose between making the character more interesting, or making them functional.
That is something, that 4E actually did well... the level progression with ASI and Feats.
But I agree with the way we should be looking at the diversity in ASI scores for d&d playable characters. IT is not that other species can't be a barb, it is just that some species if chosen get a miniscule leg up in that class. Nothing wrong with that.
It's actually even less significant than that -- they just get an "early lead." Literally everyone can hit 20 from 15 in at most 12 levels, so every single character can get to 20 in their prime stat eventually. it takes a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 3 stat bumps to get there, so the difference between the STR of a halfling fighter and a half-orc fighter would be down to 1 (19 vs 20) by level 8 and 0 at level 12.
What this is saying is that the half-orc starts out ahead because he has some natural gifts, but that long periods of training can overcome that difference, so that by the time they are 12th level, they are at parity. This mimics the real world pretty well -- in the real world, someone with a natural gift may excel over someone without on day 1 of doing something, but after years, those natural gifts don't matter as much as all the training you put into it. This is why in the real world, lots of people who are NOT naturals at something but have to do that something for a long time anyway, can be really, really good at it. Better than a "natural" who never trained.
But if you compare the "natural" to the one who isn't on day 1, the natural will be better.
the diffrence however is much greater for monks, as they are dependent on two sepperate abillity scores for everything, starting at 14 armor class instead of 16 becuase you have no natural asi's to ether of those scores, like shure if you take no feats you can try and bump wis and dex up to 16 each so you have 16 AC but that 10% difference is still gonna be staggering for your first three level
So? They also can attack more than any other class. Run faster than any other class. Make enemies attack them with disadvantage every round.
if you take no feats you can try and bump wis and dex up to 16 each so you have 16 AC but that 10% difference is still gonna be staggering for your first three level
Everyone's weak in the first 3 levels, which is why so many groups start at level 3 or 4 to begin with.
And "take no feats" -- well, feats are optional. Not everyone even uses them. And it is up to the player what to do -- if the player took feats instead of bumping stats, then I guess those stats weren't all that important to him or her in the first place.
I think the real problem here is that people want to have their cake and eat it too. They want species abilities like Darkvision and Stonecunning and Hellish Rebuke, but they also want to be able to put their stat bonuses anywhere they want. What exactly is the reason, stat-wise, to even play a variant human anymore, if everyone can already do what the variant humans can do (stat bonuses as desired) AND have better racial traits than the human can possibly duplicate with a single feat choice?
I think the real problem here is that people want to have their cake and eat it too. They want species abilities like Darkvision and Stonecunning and Hellish Rebuke, but they also want to be able to put their stat bonuses anywhere they want. What exactly is the reason, stat-wise, to even play a variant human anymore, if everyone can already do what the variant humans can do (stat bonuses as desired) AND have better racial traits than the human can possibly duplicate with a single feat choice?
Um... no. Just no. Don't try to invent hidden motivations for people unless you have real evidence. People are objecting to being disproportionately weak, not asking to be extra strong. This is not to say that any new customization points won't result in some people figuring out how to minmax it (any time there's a new choice, there's a new way of optimizing), but I see no evidence that people (on either side) are arguing in bad faith.
I think the real problem here is that people want to have their cake and eat it too. They want species abilities like Darkvision and Stonecunning and Hellish Rebuke, but they also want to be able to put their stat bonuses anywhere they want. What exactly is the reason, stat-wise, to even play a variant human anymore, if everyone can already do what the variant humans can do (stat bonuses as desired) AND have better racial traits than the human can possibly duplicate with a single feat choice?
Um... no. Just no. Don't try to invent hidden motivations for people unless you have real evidence. People are objecting to being disproportionately weak, not asking to be extra strong. This is not to say that any new customization points won't result in some people figuring out how to minmax it (any time there's a new choice, there's a new way of optimizing), but I see no evidence that people (on either side) are arguing in bad faith.
They aren't disproportionately weak. They have racial advantages and disadvantages. Which means if they choose to go into something they have a natural gift for then they will be slightly stronger. If they choose to take a path they don't have a natural affinity for then the gap can be overcome with hard work via leveling up.
It's not that big of a deal to require changing the whole system.
The issue is that the game math assumes you will have a 20 in whatever score you're using to Do Your Job by 8th level. Unless the DM is willing to accommodate you and drop every DC in the entire game by 2 because you would like to play a character that is actively avoiding making mechanically sound decisions - and I have never once in the history of the human race seen one single DM who's willing to do that - you're kinda boner'd.
Beyond that, though? Again - why should one player be actively punished by the system for wanting to play her 'offbeat' character concept, when the guy sitting next to her who is equally invested in a character concept that just-so-happens to align with the way the game's systems work gets to enjoy having a much stronger and more influential character? Alice wants to play the goliath cast out from her clan for disturbing an ancient sacred gravesite and finding an eerie Power there that whispers in her dreams; now she's a warlock and needs to find the truth of what happened to her to solve an ancient, insidious threat against her clan. Bob wants to play a wood elf who's a member of an old, hidden order of guardians who serves the stability of the world, ensuring that mortal foolishness never unleashes that which lies buried and sleeping within the earth to wreak havoc upon all our lives. His monk learns to fight with his fists and his will alone, because the weapons of man falter and fail in the face of ancient, unknowable threats.
Both of them are really keen on these concepts; they love the interplay between the two stories and are excited to see where the DM goes with it. But Alice's goliath warlock is significantly weaker than Bob's wood elf monk. Her abilities fail much more often than his do. The extra Strength she has from being a goliath counts for absolutely nothing on a warlock because D&D's shoddy game design ensures that any 'off-class' stats you have are generally completely worthless to you unless the DM goes well out of her way to make off-class rolls somehow matter. She has Stone's Endurance and can survive more hits than a basic human warlock, yes - which she's going to need to do because her AC is lower and her inability to fight well means she's constantly taking hits from enemies a character with "proper" warlock scores would've already killed.
Neither Alice nor Bob are evil dirty filthy cheating min-maxing Powergamers. They're both just playing the characters they want to play. But while Bob is shining and being his party's MVP, Alice gets to cope with the fact that her character is an active drag on the party's success. Simply because one character concept just so happened to line up perfectly with the game's mechanics, while the other clashes at every turn.
They aren't disproportionately weak. They have racial advantages and disadvantages. Which means if they choose to go into something they have a natural gift for then they will be slightly stronger. If they choose to take a path they don't have a natural affinity for then the gap can be overcome with hard work via leveling up.
They don't even have racial disadvantages for the most part.
People have become so spoiled that they consider a +0 to be a "-2 penalty" rather than a +2 being a "+2 bonus." Literally people are saying, if you don't give them a bonus in the stat they want, it's a penalty. No, it's not.... it's just not a bonus.
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.
The issue is that the game math assumes you will have a 20 in whatever score you're using to Do Your Job by 8th level. Unless the DM is willing to accommodate you and drop every DC in the entire game by 2 because you would like to play a character that is actively avoiding making mechanically sound decisions - and I have never once in the history of the human race seen one single DM who's willing to do that - you're kinda boner'd.
Having an 18 instead of 20 means that the DCs are only off by 1, not 2. That means you have to roll 1 higher on the die. That is a measly 5% difference. Please stop acting like needing to roll an 11 instead of a 10 is the end of the world.
Beyond that, though? Again - why should one player be actively punished by the system for wanting to play her 'offbeat' character concept, when the guy sitting next to her who is equally invested in a character concept that just-so-happens to align with the way the game's systems work gets to enjoy having a much stronger and more influential character? Alice wants to play the goliath cast out from her clan for disturbing an ancient sacred gravesite and finding an eerie Power there that whispers in her dreams; now she's a warlock and needs to find the truth of what happened to her to solve an ancient, insidious threat against her clan. Bob wants to play a wood elf who's a member of an old, hidden order of guardians who serves the stability of the world, ensuring that mortal foolishness never unleashes that which lies buried and sleeping within the earth to wreak havoc upon all our lives. His monk learns to fight with his fists and his will alone, because the weapons of man falter and fail in the face of ancient, unknowable threats.
Not receiving a bonus is not the same as being “actively punished.” If your job doesn’t give you a bonus, that is not the same as giving you a pay cut. Please stop acting like not receiving something extra is a “punishment.”
The bulk of your arguments seem to stem from the assumption that optimized is the baseline against witch everything else should be compared. If Bob’s PC is the baseline, then sure, Alice’s PC looks less stellar by comparison.
But has it ever occurred to you that Alice’s exceptional PC (compared to 95% of the population) should actually be considered the baseline, and that Bob’s is simply extra exceptional?
They aren't disproportionately weak. They have racial advantages and disadvantages. Which means if they choose to go into something they have a natural gift for then they will be slightly stronger. If they choose to take a path they don't have a natural affinity for then the gap can be overcome with hard work via leveling up.
They don't even have racial disadvantages for the most part.
People have become so spoiled that they consider a +0 to be a "-2 penalty" rather than a +2 being a "+2 bonus." Literally people are saying, if you don't give them a bonus in the stat they want, it's a penalty. No, it's not.... it's just not a bonus.
This entirely. And was just proven in the previous persons post. The player is "actively punished" because they can't openly assign their ASIs. FYI - not being able to do something is not being actively punished. See the issue again stems from people crying out that they need this freedom because mechanics. If you aren't playing with a group of PCs and DMs willing to work with your character, how does the saying go? "No D&D is better than bad D&D."
(Not intended for BioWizard) You want to argue why all characters should assign ASIs like variant humans, please use something more than "actively punished" and "the DM would have to adjust the game." For one the second half is already occurring, I can guarantee that. Very few DMs leave all DCs RAW when it comes to skills. It is not the opposite. But before ya'll jump on me as a hater, see my previous post of both sides have good points I just think that some characters should be better at certain things by default. Does that men that those not good at it can't do that. Hell no. But to make the playable things just basically humans with scales or pointy ears, is even WORSE when you want to argue about diversity. Look I think that movable ASI can be good, but the reasoning behind it is bad. That's the end of it.
Maybe if they did indeed give the other species more distinct features I wouldn't care as much. Like giving Half-orcs advantage in certain strength check situations instead of just a +2 sort of thing. But removing that advantage just lowers the appeal for me. I'd rather play a Half-orc Barb and play into the strength, or play a Half-orc Wizard and prove that strength isn't everything, than Play a Half-orc wizard where I can just make up is ASIs to fit what I want.
Okay, can someone remind me what we're arguing about? This change is coming as a variant rule, people (including me, Yurei, and others on this thread) want this rule and will be happy if we get it in the way we want it. No one can stop this rule from being released, it doesn't affect your games unless you want it to, and it is all based on a matter of opinion. You're not going to persuade me against wanting this, and we're not going to persuade you for having it (because this is the internet, where no constructive discussions about opinions ever occur).
So, unless there is a point to discussing this (which I would like to be clarified if there is one), maybe this discussion doesn't need to happen.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Optimized standard array is the baseline on which the game math was built. And a point's difference is not "5% more sucky". recall that the game math is already assuming a failure rate of 35%, even for characters who hit all the right notes and build "correctly". Dropping a point when one is already sitting on a 35% failure rate is a significantly higher relative difference. As an easy to follow example: let's assume the character with the +3 bonus is assumed to succeed exactly 50% of the time. That is an absolutely piss miserable success rate for a supposed Trained Professional, but it's an easy number to follow so we'll use it.
The character with a +2 bonus, instead, has a 45% success rate. That feels like a minor, inconsequential thing...but in actuality her overall success rate has dropped by ten percent when compared to her peers, rather than 'just' five. Losing five points out of fifty is a ten percent drop, not a five percent drop. Because D&D does not believe in gradients of success and every single roll is either "you succeed perfectly" or "you fail humiliatingly", Alice gets to eat a ten percent overall increase in "Fail Humiliatingly" moments. That adds up over a campaign, especially when one incorrectly assumes that the 'strengths' one has elsewhere from a clashing species/class combination actually matters in any significant way. Because the other thing to remember is that those fifty percent of "Successful" rolls for the +3 character make up a much higher percentage of their 'Good' rolls than their 'Bad' ones. A warlock makes a much higher number of Charisma rolls than a monk does, no matter what their skill proficiencies are. Failing ten percent more Charisma checks for a warlock turns into a significantly higher percentage of failed checks overall when one realizes that this increased failure chance is embedded into the heart of what a character does. The ten percent increased success rate with the Strength checks a warlock is basically never asked to make does not even remotely compensate for losing ten percent of the checks Alice makes fifty of every night. Again - that sort of disparity adds up session over session.
Maybe Alice is fine with that. Maybe Alice thinks it's only natural that her goliath who never really wanted to be a warlock and is fighting against her 'patron' to save her clan is heckin' terrible at being a warlock. That's a cool story to tell, and she should have that option.
Alice should also have the option of her goliath warlock discovering a thirst for that power and diving headfirst into her newfound abilities, reveling in a strength her clan could never have offered her. As it stands, she doesn't get to tell that story. Not and have the mechanics of her character back it up, at least.
The solution, had 5e been designed by game designers looking forward rather than the nebulous all-consuming blob monster known as The Playerbase whose sole concern was that D&D never feel like it's advanced beyond 1985, would be for class, species, and background to each contribute one point of attribute bonus., with optional rules for reconfiguring these bonuses to better fit edge-case storylines. They way you're born impacts your character. The way you're raised impacts your character. And the way you're trained impacts your character. Not "the way you're born is the only thing that ever matters, period and forever, and if you ever go against your species norms you're bad at D&D and should quit the game now, please".
People are concerned about it because it's a slippery slope, and may eventually be part of the official rules. As others have mentioned, doing this is on the path to making species nothing more than a cosmetic skin.
Smart companies listen to the majority of their customers. Unfortunately, it seems that WOC is listening to a small but vocal group, most of whom have no long term interest in D&D, and are solely focused on imposing their social agenda.
Also, no one is saying that you can't play the game the way you want to play it. That's a straw-man argument.
I will reserve my criticism on the new options till after they're published and i can actually read the text. Contrary to what some politicians have said, you can't make an informed decision without information.
That being said, I'd like to refer back to one of the first posts in this thread. The poster made reference to nature vs nurture, which i think is something that is lacking in the feature package all races have to work with as the game stands now.
Establishing each feature, not just stats, as NAT or NUR would (could) work well for reassigning features for characters raised outside of the cultural norm for that race. Nature related features, with their biological basis should be invariable. A halfling by definition should be limited to size small. An elf raised by dwarves however shouldn't get elven weapon training, they should get dwarven weapon training. Physical stats are NAT, nonphysical are NUR. Orcs get a -2 to int because their culture suppresses learning. Elves get chr bonus because their culture is dynamically emotive. An elf raised by Aaracroka or Warforged shouldn't get that bonus. The dwarven and stout halfling greater poison resistance is biological, not related to culture, so any character of those races should always have those features regardless of what culture raised them.
There is racial disparity for stat bonuses, greatly favoring humans and dwarves. Some racial features, like halfling luck, compensate the imbalance by giving the character an equally imbalanced and overpowered (yes, i consider having a character unable to criticality fail overpowered.) Genasi by contrast are hugely underpowered for race features.
So i guess my point is just that there is room for improvement. I look forward to seeing what Tasha has to offer.
P.s. a lot of the arguments in this thread remind me of the movie, "Strictly Ballroom." The chaotic dance diector says, "Be creative, come up with something new." The Lawful dance director says, "THERE ARE NO NEW DANCE STEPS."
Smart companies listen to the majority of their customers. Unfortunately, it seems that WOC is listening to a small but vocal group, most of whom have no long term interest in D&D, and are solely focused on imposing their social agenda.
Ok, stuff like this drives me nuts and even though it may seem like we are on the same side this is actually counterproductive. There is zero proof that those who support the change are either in the minority or have no long term interest in the game. I have no idea what percentage of the fan base is in support of it but it would appear to not be that small of an amount. And people line Yuri, Pantagruel666 and Third have definitely shown they have significant interest in the long term of the game and have for some time.
Okay, can someone remind me what we're arguing about? This change is coming as a variant rule, people (including me, Yurei, and others on this thread) want this rule and will be happy if we get it in the way we want it. No one can stop this rule from being released, it doesn't affect your games unless you want it to, and it is all based on a matter of opinion. You're not going to persuade me against wanting this, and we're not going to persuade you for having it (because this is the internet, where no constructive discussions about opinions ever occur).
So, unless there is a point to discussing this (which I would like to be clarified if there is one), maybe this discussion doesn't need to happen.
Just because we can’t change it doesn’t mean we can’t discuss it have our opinions heard. For me I like the fact that I’m not the only one that feels the way I do and that some people agree with my reasons. I am fully aware that WOTC isn’t going to read this thread and suddenly announce “Oh no! We were wrong about this the whole time!” I also know that you and Yuri are not going to change your views. But here I am being heard and commiserated with. So that’s the point if the discussion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This seems like the favorite topic of this board it seems like a new 10-15 page pops up every single day.
It's actually even less significant than that -- they just get an "early lead." Literally everyone can hit 20 from 15 in at most 12 levels, so every single character can get to 20 in their prime stat eventually. it takes a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 3 stat bumps to get there, so the difference between the STR of a halfling fighter and a half-orc fighter would be down to 1 (19 vs 20) by level 8 and 0 at level 12.
What this is saying is that the half-orc starts out ahead because he has some natural gifts, but that long periods of training can overcome that difference, so that by the time they are 12th level, they are at parity. This mimics the real world pretty well -- in the real world, someone with a natural gift may excel over someone without on day 1 of doing something, but after years, those natural gifts don't matter as much as all the training you put into it. This is why in the real world, lots of people who are NOT naturals at something but have to do that something for a long time anyway, can be really, really good at it. Better than a "natural" who never trained.
But if you compare the "natural" to the one who isn't on day 1, the natural will be better.
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.
Monkey Grip is. 3.5 feat:
https://dnd.arkalseif.info/feats/complete-warrior--61/monkey-grip--1978/
I had a dwarf in NWN2 that wielded a greatsword in each hand where each one procced 2d6 extra cold damage each time. Munchkinism at its finest.
yeah like whenever a check the last message is always like less than 20 minutes ago this is great
the diffrence however is much greater for monks, as they are dependent on two sepperate abillity scores for everything, starting at 14 armor class instead of 16 becuase you have no natural asi's to ether of those scores, like shure if you take no feats you can try and bump wis and dex up to 16 each so you have 16 AC but that 10% difference is still gonna be staggering for your first three level
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
The feats competing for ability score increases makes the issue so much worse than it would be otherwise. Imo feats should be separated completely from ASIs, and characters automatically get them as they level up.
Apart from the odd few powerful feats, most are basically flavor, and you have to choose between making the character more interesting, or making them functional.
That is something, that 4E actually did well... the level progression with ASI and Feats.
So? They also can attack more than any other class. Run faster than any other class. Make enemies attack them with disadvantage every round.
Everyone's weak in the first 3 levels, which is why so many groups start at level 3 or 4 to begin with.
And "take no feats" -- well, feats are optional. Not everyone even uses them. And it is up to the player what to do -- if the player took feats instead of bumping stats, then I guess those stats weren't all that important to him or her in the first place.
I think the real problem here is that people want to have their cake and eat it too. They want species abilities like Darkvision and Stonecunning and Hellish Rebuke, but they also want to be able to put their stat bonuses anywhere they want. What exactly is the reason, stat-wise, to even play a variant human anymore, if everyone can already do what the variant humans can do (stat bonuses as desired) AND have better racial traits than the human can possibly duplicate with a single feat choice?
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.
Um... no. Just no. Don't try to invent hidden motivations for people unless you have real evidence. People are objecting to being disproportionately weak, not asking to be extra strong. This is not to say that any new customization points won't result in some people figuring out how to minmax it (any time there's a new choice, there's a new way of optimizing), but I see no evidence that people (on either side) are arguing in bad faith.
They aren't disproportionately weak. They have racial advantages and disadvantages. Which means if they choose to go into something they have a natural gift for then they will be slightly stronger. If they choose to take a path they don't have a natural affinity for then the gap can be overcome with hard work via leveling up.
It's not that big of a deal to require changing the whole system.
The issue is that the game math assumes you will have a 20 in whatever score you're using to Do Your Job by 8th level. Unless the DM is willing to accommodate you and drop every DC in the entire game by 2 because you would like to play a character that is actively avoiding making mechanically sound decisions - and I have never once in the history of the human race seen one single DM who's willing to do that - you're kinda boner'd.
Beyond that, though? Again - why should one player be actively punished by the system for wanting to play her 'offbeat' character concept, when the guy sitting next to her who is equally invested in a character concept that just-so-happens to align with the way the game's systems work gets to enjoy having a much stronger and more influential character? Alice wants to play the goliath cast out from her clan for disturbing an ancient sacred gravesite and finding an eerie Power there that whispers in her dreams; now she's a warlock and needs to find the truth of what happened to her to solve an ancient, insidious threat against her clan. Bob wants to play a wood elf who's a member of an old, hidden order of guardians who serves the stability of the world, ensuring that mortal foolishness never unleashes that which lies buried and sleeping within the earth to wreak havoc upon all our lives. His monk learns to fight with his fists and his will alone, because the weapons of man falter and fail in the face of ancient, unknowable threats.
Both of them are really keen on these concepts; they love the interplay between the two stories and are excited to see where the DM goes with it. But Alice's goliath warlock is significantly weaker than Bob's wood elf monk. Her abilities fail much more often than his do. The extra Strength she has from being a goliath counts for absolutely nothing on a warlock because D&D's shoddy game design ensures that any 'off-class' stats you have are generally completely worthless to you unless the DM goes well out of her way to make off-class rolls somehow matter. She has Stone's Endurance and can survive more hits than a basic human warlock, yes - which she's going to need to do because her AC is lower and her inability to fight well means she's constantly taking hits from enemies a character with "proper" warlock scores would've already killed.
Neither Alice nor Bob are evil dirty filthy cheating min-maxing Powergamers. They're both just playing the characters they want to play. But while Bob is shining and being his party's MVP, Alice gets to cope with the fact that her character is an active drag on the party's success. Simply because one character concept just so happened to line up perfectly with the game's mechanics, while the other clashes at every turn.
How is that fair to Alice, exactly?
Please do not contact or message me.
They don't even have racial disadvantages for the most part.
People have become so spoiled that they consider a +0 to be a "-2 penalty" rather than a +2 being a "+2 bonus." Literally people are saying, if you don't give them a bonus in the stat they want, it's a penalty. No, it's not.... it's just not a bonus.
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.
Having an 18 instead of 20 means that the DCs are only off by 1, not 2. That means you have to roll 1 higher on the die. That is a measly 5% difference. Please stop acting like needing to roll an 11 instead of a 10 is the end of the world.
Not receiving a bonus is not the same as being “actively punished.” If your job doesn’t give you a bonus, that is not the same as giving you a pay cut. Please stop acting like not receiving something extra is a “punishment.”
The bulk of your arguments seem to stem from the assumption that optimized is the baseline against witch everything else should be compared. If Bob’s PC is the baseline, then sure, Alice’s PC looks less stellar by comparison.
But has it ever occurred to you that Alice’s exceptional PC (compared to 95% of the population) should actually be considered the baseline, and that Bob’s is simply extra exceptional?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This entirely. And was just proven in the previous persons post. The player is "actively punished" because they can't openly assign their ASIs. FYI - not being able to do something is not being actively punished. See the issue again stems from people crying out that they need this freedom because mechanics. If you aren't playing with a group of PCs and DMs willing to work with your character, how does the saying go? "No D&D is better than bad D&D."
(Not intended for BioWizard) You want to argue why all characters should assign ASIs like variant humans, please use something more than "actively punished" and "the DM would have to adjust the game." For one the second half is already occurring, I can guarantee that. Very few DMs leave all DCs RAW when it comes to skills. It is not the opposite. But before ya'll jump on me as a hater, see my previous post of both sides have good points I just think that some characters should be better at certain things by default. Does that men that those not good at it can't do that. Hell no. But to make the playable things just basically humans with scales or pointy ears, is even WORSE when you want to argue about diversity. Look I think that movable ASI can be good, but the reasoning behind it is bad. That's the end of it.
Maybe if they did indeed give the other species more distinct features I wouldn't care as much. Like giving Half-orcs advantage in certain strength check situations instead of just a +2 sort of thing. But removing that advantage just lowers the appeal for me. I'd rather play a Half-orc Barb and play into the strength, or play a Half-orc Wizard and prove that strength isn't everything, than Play a Half-orc wizard where I can just make up is ASIs to fit what I want.
Okay, can someone remind me what we're arguing about? This change is coming as a variant rule, people (including me, Yurei, and others on this thread) want this rule and will be happy if we get it in the way we want it. No one can stop this rule from being released, it doesn't affect your games unless you want it to, and it is all based on a matter of opinion. You're not going to persuade me against wanting this, and we're not going to persuade you for having it (because this is the internet, where no constructive discussions about opinions ever occur).
So, unless there is a point to discussing this (which I would like to be clarified if there is one), maybe this discussion doesn't need to happen.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Optimized standard array is the baseline on which the game math was built. And a point's difference is not "5% more sucky". recall that the game math is already assuming a failure rate of 35%, even for characters who hit all the right notes and build "correctly". Dropping a point when one is already sitting on a 35% failure rate is a significantly higher relative difference. As an easy to follow example: let's assume the character with the +3 bonus is assumed to succeed exactly 50% of the time. That is an absolutely piss miserable success rate for a supposed Trained Professional, but it's an easy number to follow so we'll use it.
The character with a +2 bonus, instead, has a 45% success rate. That feels like a minor, inconsequential thing...but in actuality her overall success rate has dropped by ten percent when compared to her peers, rather than 'just' five. Losing five points out of fifty is a ten percent drop, not a five percent drop. Because D&D does not believe in gradients of success and every single roll is either "you succeed perfectly" or "you fail humiliatingly", Alice gets to eat a ten percent overall increase in "Fail Humiliatingly" moments. That adds up over a campaign, especially when one incorrectly assumes that the 'strengths' one has elsewhere from a clashing species/class combination actually matters in any significant way. Because the other thing to remember is that those fifty percent of "Successful" rolls for the +3 character make up a much higher percentage of their 'Good' rolls than their 'Bad' ones. A warlock makes a much higher number of Charisma rolls than a monk does, no matter what their skill proficiencies are. Failing ten percent more Charisma checks for a warlock turns into a significantly higher percentage of failed checks overall when one realizes that this increased failure chance is embedded into the heart of what a character does. The ten percent increased success rate with the Strength checks a warlock is basically never asked to make does not even remotely compensate for losing ten percent of the checks Alice makes fifty of every night. Again - that sort of disparity adds up session over session.
Maybe Alice is fine with that. Maybe Alice thinks it's only natural that her goliath who never really wanted to be a warlock and is fighting against her 'patron' to save her clan is heckin' terrible at being a warlock. That's a cool story to tell, and she should have that option.
Alice should also have the option of her goliath warlock discovering a thirst for that power and diving headfirst into her newfound abilities, reveling in a strength her clan could never have offered her. As it stands, she doesn't get to tell that story. Not and have the mechanics of her character back it up, at least.
The solution, had 5e been designed by game designers looking forward rather than the nebulous all-consuming blob monster known as The Playerbase whose sole concern was that D&D never feel like it's advanced beyond 1985, would be for class, species, and background to each contribute one point of attribute bonus., with optional rules for reconfiguring these bonuses to better fit edge-case storylines. They way you're born impacts your character. The way you're raised impacts your character. And the way you're trained impacts your character. Not "the way you're born is the only thing that ever matters, period and forever, and if you ever go against your species norms you're bad at D&D and should quit the game now, please".
Please do not contact or message me.
People are concerned about it because it's a slippery slope, and may eventually be part of the official rules. As others have mentioned, doing this is on the path to making species nothing more than a cosmetic skin.
Smart companies listen to the majority of their customers. Unfortunately, it seems that WOC is listening to a small but vocal group, most of whom have no long term interest in D&D, and are solely focused on imposing their social agenda.
Also, no one is saying that you can't play the game the way you want to play it. That's a straw-man argument.
I will reserve my criticism on the new options till after they're published and i can actually read the text. Contrary to what some politicians have said, you can't make an informed decision without information.
That being said, I'd like to refer back to one of the first posts in this thread. The poster made reference to nature vs nurture, which i think is something that is lacking in the feature package all races have to work with as the game stands now.
Establishing each feature, not just stats, as NAT or NUR would (could) work well for reassigning features for characters raised outside of the cultural norm for that race. Nature related features, with their biological basis should be invariable. A halfling by definition should be limited to size small. An elf raised by dwarves however shouldn't get elven weapon training, they should get dwarven weapon training. Physical stats are NAT, nonphysical are NUR. Orcs get a -2 to int because their culture suppresses learning. Elves get chr bonus because their culture is dynamically emotive. An elf raised by Aaracroka or Warforged shouldn't get that bonus. The dwarven and stout halfling greater poison resistance is biological, not related to culture, so any character of those races should always have those features regardless of what culture raised them.
There is racial disparity for stat bonuses, greatly favoring humans and dwarves. Some racial features, like halfling luck, compensate the imbalance by giving the character an equally imbalanced and overpowered (yes, i consider having a character unable to criticality fail overpowered.) Genasi by contrast are hugely underpowered for race features.
So i guess my point is just that there is room for improvement. I look forward to seeing what Tasha has to offer.
P.s. a lot of the arguments in this thread remind me of the movie, "Strictly Ballroom." The chaotic dance diector says, "Be creative, come up with something new." The Lawful dance director says, "THERE ARE NO NEW DANCE STEPS."
Ok, stuff like this drives me nuts and even though it may seem like we are on the same side this is actually counterproductive. There is zero proof that those who support the change are either in the minority or have no long term interest in the game. I have no idea what percentage of the fan base is in support of it but it would appear to not be that small of an amount. And people line Yuri, Pantagruel666 and Third have definitely shown they have significant interest in the long term of the game and have for some time.
Just because we can’t change it doesn’t mean we can’t discuss it have our opinions heard. For me I like the fact that I’m not the only one that feels the way I do and that some people agree with my reasons. I am fully aware that WOTC isn’t going to read this thread and suddenly announce “Oh no! We were wrong about this the whole time!” I also know that you and Yuri are not going to change your views. But here I am being heard and commiserated with. So that’s the point if the discussion.