Actually it does and still makes it seem you are saying “only my changes is important.” I am sure that isn’t how you meant it. So you’re position is “add new thing to give us more variety?” Because it would seem that you are arguing for the opposite here. I mean it makes for better variety when there are two Orcs at the table and one has a STR bonus and the other has an INT bonus. You seem to locked into the mentality that the majority of players will abuse rather to use them for more creative opportunities.
Also saying that you prefer Psionics a certain like they were in the past actually does sound like you want WoTC to change them to something from another game which has already been made and you can play. Yes you can your opinion but when you say that “WotC shouldn’t have to change D&D to suit people who would prefer a different game, that’s why there are different games,” It does apply to you as well and I am allowed to call it out. If WoTC want Psionics to use spellcasting then that is the way WoTC wants them to be played in 5e. You are welcomed to ban them from your table if you wish but it is the same as these rules.
As to your first point, I have been around long enough to know that any game with “builds” has a meta, and that people will build to the meta. I cannot speak to the current edition of 40k, but last edition was Imperial soup and Slam Captains for days. look at WoW. D&d is no different, the only reason we have the variety of “builds” we have now is because of those restrictions that make playing anything but an Aarakocra or a Yaun-Ti look more attractive for certain builds.
One thing Yurei and I both vehemently agree on is the lack of meaningful Player agency in character building. If Race becomes less meaningful, that gives us even fewer meaningful character choices.
As to your second point, I do not want Psionics to be “like they were before.” My only criteria is that they be “Different than Spellcasting, like they were different from Spellcasting before.” What shape that difference takes is less relevant to me. I LOVED the Psi Die, that never existed in Psionics before. Why did I love it? Because it was different than anything else we currently have in D&D. Again, my only criteria was that it be different than something we already have, Spellcasting.
Imho I feel like there is a middle ground here to be had.
Species do have innate advantages and disadvantages, including in their abilities. However in DnD the species kinda dictates the class you want to play, unless you want to be significantly suboptimal. This kinda stiffles creativity and backstory somewhat. Take the average elf and the average ork for instance, the average ork should generally be stronger, and the average elf should generally be more agile. But that doesnt mean that all good rogues are elves and all good barbarians are orks.
I feel like somewhere in the middle could have been a better approach.
I.e. Each species gives a +1 to an attributes, and a -1 to an attribute, then you can have 3 free points to put in whatever stat you want, including the stat you have a penalty in! The maximum you can gain from this is +2. So if you are an elf with say +1 AGI, -1 STR, you can only put 1 of your 3 points into AGI, since that is a +2 cap. The other two points need to go elsewhere. However you can put all three points into STR instead, to get a +2 bonus to STR if you wish to play a elf that prides themselves on their strength.
What this means is that an orc wizard can be as smart as a high elf wizard, if the orc wizard puts all their points into INT. This pushes the variance into the non essential stats. An Elf Wizard will likely be more dexterious than an Orc wizard, while the Orc wizard will be stronger. (although neither will be as agile as a rogue or as strong as a barbarian) Thats their species traits shining through, however since both have devoted their time and effort into being good with books and studying, both have the same essential statline to begin with.
This kinda reduces the impact of species on viability, while still having the flavorful aspect of species variance comes through.
I actually like this compromise. It allows each character to retain the individuality of their species, but also than be more of in individual with in it too. If I had PCs who felt the need for a different ASI method I'd do this, But frankly my PCs choose species not based on ASIs, because they don't care either way.
I.e. Each species gives a +1 to an attributes, and a -1 to an attribute, then you can have 3 free points to put in whatever stat you want
I do not object to negatives -- I think there should be some to balance out the positives -- but you cannot possibly imagine that people who consider +0 to be a "crippling penalty" to their character would find a -1 acceptable to anything.
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.
Heh. I did it without the new rule because that campaign used nonstandard character generation that allowed me to build to a 77-point array. Just like Mercer's every so slightly more famous and well known campaign used nonstandard character generation that gave the hjalf-ojrc Hexblade paladin in question a leg up.
Most people do not use those nonstandard character generation methods. Most DMs would not allow tieflings that looked like Star does, or half-orcs that look/act like Fjord do. This rule is there so people might end up opening their minds a little bit. If they want to, anyways.
Again - one can already make absolutely ludicrous, super minmaxy characters with nothing but PHB rules. Sorlocadins hardly need variant Tasha rules to exist. And frankly, I've never needed any reason not to play yuan-ti outside of yuan-ti being yuan-ti. Which means they're a mistake and the primary reason Volo's Guide to DM Headaches is a terrible book.
See, I have no problems with characters like that. More power to them.
Maybe everyone will suddenly start playing nothing but Halflings all of a sudden so their +2 Cha, +1 Con Pala-sorlock-bard can have the Lucky trait to get around their DM’s ban on the Lucky feat, or go extra bananas on the DMs that haven’t.
And this is actually an important issue...
If a player is being "penalized" by not being able to take the +2/+1 bonus in the stat he or she wants for a given class to "optimize," why is it not also penalizing them to not give them the exact suite of "racial feats" that would optimize the character also?
How is it different to argue, "You are penalizing me by not allowing my elf to have the 'halfling luck' trait. You are basically forcing me to play a halfling to get the abilities I want", vs. "You are penalizing me by not letting my halfling get the +2/+1 bonus where I want"?
Are they not the same exact argument? In fact, given the arguable much higher utility (esp. at low level) of certain racial feats compared to a simple +2 stat bonus, and the fact that stats can automatically be upped every few levels if you want, but feats may not even be in your game, and racial feats cannot even be purchased after character creation in most cases, it would seem that not allowing someone to purchase the "needed" racial trait to prevent that character being "unfairly penalized" would be much more critical than a mere +2 to a single stat.
After all, Darkvision is useful ALL the time in EVERY situation in which light is not full. It prevents you from giving away your position with torches. It prevents you from needing to carry a light source. It means you don't have to "waste" a cantrip on the silly light spell. Seems to me, if you don't allow me to just take Darkvision for my human or my Aarkocra, you are penalizing my character unfairly, far more so than just the +2 to a stat.
And this is the concern some of us have. Right now, it's stat bonuses. There are also moves to purge some of the racial descriptions about cultural/behavioral characteristics ("savage" orcs, and whatnot). How much of a step is it to this next part, which is to purge the only thing left that differentiates the various species/races/whatever -- those special traits like stonecunning and darkvision and halfling luck. What makes anyone thing that the next rulebook won't say that those can be picked too?
And now as someone said, we have Fantasy Hero (which is 100% point-buy). You get 25 points per character. Darkvision costs 10. Halfling luck costs 15. Stonecunning costs 5. Extra languages cost 5. Pick what you want.
And once that happens, as I have been saying all along, now we just have a bunch of super-powered humans who look funny. What defined the races since all the way back to 1st edition, is gone.
Of course you are correct. I said the same thing earlier today in a post. The game will devolve into every char being an amorphous mass, with features and abilities all chosen from the same pool, and then a player will say "this is an elf", and another player, with precisely the same set of features, will say "this is a half-orc". It is inevitable that once this first wall is breached, the XGTE Feats will be attacked, and then all the species specific features. I am sure that the Drow 120' Darkvision will be very popular with anyone playing a Human.
As to your first point, I have been around long enough to know that any game with “builds” has a meta, and that people will build to the meta. I cannot speak to the current edition of 40k, but last edition was Imperial soup and Slam Captains for days. look at WoW. D&d is no different, the only reason we have the variety of “builds” we have now is because of those restrictions that make playing anything but an Aarakocra or a Yaun-Ti look more attractive for certain builds.
40k, probably WoW (I don't know I haven't played it), M:tG are all games with meta builds. The difference between those games and D&D is that those are competitive games. D&D isn't. If someone tries to build a meta character by abusing the new rules, just don't allow them to do it.
On a side note, a lot of people are saying that if we removed Ability score increases from races, then it would just become everyone spamming the same race. I think it would instead make races more about features than Asi's. Instead of deciding your race from what ability buffs the race gives, you would do it from its other traits. Halfling for lucky, Drow for 120 ft darkvision, Aarockra for flight. You still have to make a decision. Finally, choosing to take a +2 and a +1 would be optional. So if you want to get more asi's, you could take a race like Half Elf which grants two to Charisma and plus one to two other scores.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
I.e. Each species gives a +1 to an attributes, and a -1 to an attribute, then you can have 3 free points to put in whatever stat you want
I do not object to negatives -- I think there should be some to balance out the positives -- but you cannot possibly imagine that people who consider +0 to be a "crippling penalty" to their character would find a -1 acceptable to anything.
Huh? Nah, that 1 point is only a big deal for the primary attribute of your class, it's usually about twice as important as secondary stats (such as Con) and probably four times as important as your dump stat, whatever that is (most often Str, Int, or Cha).
Actually it does and still makes it seem you are saying “only my changes is important.” I am sure that isn’t how you meant it. So you’re position is “add new thing to give us more variety?” Because it would seem that you are arguing for the opposite here. I mean it makes for better variety when there are two Orcs at the table and one has a STR bonus and the other has an INT bonus. You seem to locked into the mentality that the majority of players will abuse rather to use them for more creative opportunities.
Also saying that you prefer Psionics a certain like they were in the past actually does sound like you want WoTC to change them to something from another game which has already been made and you can play. Yes you can your opinion but when you say that “WotC shouldn’t have to change D&D to suit people who would prefer a different game, that’s why there are different games,” It does apply to you as well and I am allowed to call it out. If WoTC want Psionics to use spellcasting then that is the way WoTC wants them to be played in 5e. You are welcomed to ban them from your table if you wish but it is the same as these rules.
As to your first point, I have been around long enough to know that any game with “builds” has a meta, and that people will build to the meta. I cannot speak to the current edition of 40k, but last edition was Imperial soup and Slam Captains for days. look at WoW. D&d is no different, the only reason we have the variety of “builds” we have now is because of those restrictions that make playing anything but an Aarakocra or a Yaun-Ti look more attractive for certain builds.
One thing Yurei and I both vehemently agree on is the lack of meaningful Player agency in character building. If Race becomes less meaningful, that gives us even fewer meaningful character choices.
As to your second point, I do not want Psionics to be “like they were before.” My only criteria is that they be “Different than Spellcasting, like they were different from Spellcasting before.” What shape that difference takes is less relevant to me. I LOVED the Psi Die, that never existed in Psionics before. Why did I love it? Because it was different than anything else we currently have in D&D. Again, my only criteria was that it be different than something we already have, Spellcasting.
However you also take away player agency that you claim you want. I see Yurei actually arguing against you on this one and I agree with them. This actually adds to meaningful player agency without taking anything away(which you have stated is what you want correct, more options less streamline). It adds variety to the game. I think that you might want to actually start to look around and see that there are tons of creative people who won’t abuse the system. Will there be some? Yea. However this isn’t 3.5e where only a few builds ruled even though there was plenty of options. The playerbase is different and there are tons that are very creative.
However I can see that despite saying otherwise, you don’t actually believe in more meaning player agency as you have already decided to keep it limited. Maybe that is the difference between us, I see the possibilities and can already see people building different versions of stuff they want to play. Or even more meaningful choices than that. Again you can always ban the stuff from your game.
As to your first point, I have been around long enough to know that any game with “builds” has a meta, and that people will build to the meta. I cannot speak to the current edition of 40k, but last edition was Imperial soup and Slam Captains for days. look at WoW. D&d is no different, the only reason we have the variety of “builds” we have now is because of those restrictions that make playing anything but an Aarakocra or a Yaun-Ti look more attractive for certain builds.
40k, probably WoW (I don't know I haven't played it), M:tG are all games with meta builds. The difference between those games and D&D is that those are competitive games. D&D isn't. If someone tries to build a meta character by abusing the new rules, just don't allow them to do it.
On a side note, a lot of people are saying that if we removed Ability score increases from races, then it would just become everyone spamming the same race. I think it would instead make races more about features than Asi's. Instead of deciding your race from what ability buffs the race gives, you would do it from its other traits. Halfling for lucky, Drow for 120 ft darkvision, Aarockra for flight. You still have to make a decision. Finally, choosing to take a +2 and a +1 would be optional. So if you want to get more asi's, you could take a race like Half Elf which grants two to Charisma and plus one to two other scores.
This. All of this. This is exactly what I have been trying to say. It opens up options. Thank you.
As to your first point, I have been around long enough to know that any game with “builds” has a meta, and that people will build to the meta. I cannot speak to the current edition of 40k, but last edition was Imperial soup and Slam Captains for days. look at WoW. D&d is no different, the only reason we have the variety of “builds” we have now is because of those restrictions that make playing anything but an Aarakocra or a Yaun-Ti look more attractive for certain builds.
40k, probably WoW (I don't know I haven't played it), M:tG are all games with meta builds. The difference between those games and D&D is that those are competitive games. D&D isn't.
Horse poopy. The only reason AL exists is so that people can whip out their builds and measure. It’s the type 2 of D&D.
Actually it does and still makes it seem you are saying “only my changes is important.” I am sure that isn’t how you meant it. So you’re position is “add new thing to give us more variety?” Because it would seem that you are arguing for the opposite here. I mean it makes for better variety when there are two Orcs at the table and one has a STR bonus and the other has an INT bonus. You seem to locked into the mentality that the majority of players will abuse rather to use them for more creative opportunities.
Also saying that you prefer Psionics a certain like they were in the past actually does sound like you want WoTC to change them to something from another game which has already been made and you can play. Yes you can your opinion but when you say that “WotC shouldn’t have to change D&D to suit people who would prefer a different game, that’s why there are different games,” It does apply to you as well and I am allowed to call it out. If WoTC want Psionics to use spellcasting then that is the way WoTC wants them to be played in 5e. You are welcomed to ban them from your table if you wish but it is the same as these rules.
As to your first point, I have been around long enough to know that any game with “builds” has a meta, and that people will build to the meta. I cannot speak to the current edition of 40k, but last edition was Imperial soup and Slam Captains for days. look at WoW. D&d is no different, the only reason we have the variety of “builds” we have now is because of those restrictions that make playing anything but an Aarakocra or a Yaun-Ti look more attractive for certain builds.
One thing Yurei and I both vehemently agree on is the lack of meaningful Player agency in character building. If Race becomes less meaningful, that gives us even fewer meaningful character choices.
As to your second point, I do not want Psionics to be “like they were before.” My only criteria is that they be “Different than Spellcasting, like they were different from Spellcasting before.” What shape that difference takes is less relevant to me. I LOVED the Psi Die, that never existed in Psionics before. Why did I love it? Because it was different than anything else we currently have in D&D. Again, my only criteria was that it be different than something we already have, Spellcasting.
However you also take away player agency that you claim you want. I see Yurei actually arguing against you on this one and I agree with them. This actually adds to meaningful player agency without taking anything away(which you have stated is what you want correct, more options less streamline). It adds variety to the game. I think that you might want to actually start to look around and see that there are tons of creative people who won’t abuse the system. Will there be some? Yea. However this isn’t 3.5e where only a few builds ruled even though there was plenty of options. The playerbase is different and there are tons that are very creative.
However I can see that despite saying otherwise, you don’t actually believe in more meaning player agency as you have already decided to keep it limited. Maybe that is the difference between us, I see the possibilities and can already see people building different versions of stuff they want to play. Or even more meaningful choices than that. Again you can always ban the stuff from your game.
Or like many of us, we don't see the need for a Half-orc wizard to NEED a +2 in INT to make that character. Sposta has never said he prevents players from playing races that don't give bonuses to their prime stat. So that's a very projecting argument you are making.
I can make a Goliath Wizard with out without this new ASI system. Player agency is not being added by this system because that agency already exists. The only thing this new system will do is make my goliath wizard better if I so choose. It's the "win more" feature.
As to your first point, I have been around long enough to know that any game with “builds” has a meta, and that people will build to the meta. I cannot speak to the current edition of 40k, but last edition was Imperial soup and Slam Captains for days. look at WoW. D&d is no different, the only reason we have the variety of “builds” we have now is because of those restrictions that make playing anything but an Aarakocra or a Yaun-Ti look more attractive for certain builds.
40k, probably WoW (I don't know I haven't played it), M:tG are all games with meta builds. The difference between those games and D&D is that those are competitive games. D&D isn't. If someone tries to build a meta character by abusing the new rules, just don't allow them to do it.
It isn't now and days, but D&D did have a competitive scene in the past. i didn't play back then but heard about it on podcasts from the earlier days of the game.
As to your first point, I have been around long enough to know that any game with “builds” has a meta, and that people will build to the meta. I cannot speak to the current edition of 40k, but last edition was Imperial soup and Slam Captains for days. look at WoW. D&d is no different, the only reason we have the variety of “builds” we have now is because of those restrictions that make playing anything but an Aarakocra or a Yaun-Ti look more attractive for certain builds.
40k, probably WoW (I don't know I haven't played it), M:tG are all games with meta builds. The difference between those games and D&D is that those are competitive games. D&D isn't.
Horse poopy. The only reason AL exists is so that people can whip out their builds and measure. It’s the type 2 of D&D.
I was under the impression that a significant amount of people play AL because they don't have a consistent group they can play with, and want to be able to play D&D in a consistent way, at times that suit them.
Okay, Sposta. Those combinations are all valid concerns, but I still don't agree with it.
Why will we see everyone playing those now? Not everyone was a powergamer before, why would this variant rule make them all be one now?
That's a weird thing to claim. Again, like Yurei said earlier, if the powergamers haven't eaten your souls yet, why does this variant rule change that? I'm asking for real, with all the crazy combinations that you can already achieve in 5e, why does this suddenly cause every player to become a Yuan-Ti Barbarian, Yuan-Ti Wizard, or Yuan-Ti Artificer?
I have a reason for why that hasn't happened: Not all characters are powergamers.
Aasimars can be placed anywhere in the world and can be placed in placed where the main culture is Elvish, Dwarvish, Orcish, Goblin, and with other races. Why couldn’t they have the traits of the culture that they are born into? I don’t know how this doesn’t add versatility to character creation.
Did you quote the wrong person? I have never argued against adding this feature in the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Heh. I mean, there's a whole lot of grouchiness and rumble-grumbling and people very upset this rule is an Official Thing in an official Book come November, rather than a piece of homebrew they can shut down. Is it any surprise that a lot of that sort of grouchiness comes off as "stop playing D&D wrong, you whippersnappers!"?
I know this concept is utterly foreign to you, but maybe, just maybe, people who have played D&D for longer than you, through multiple editions, might have more experience than you, and might have more wisdom and insight on what is good for the game, than you.
Yeah, no. Experience is helpful, but "what is good for the game" is your own opinion. Move out of the way, the next generation is coming to take your D&D! This is gatekeeping, and not constructive to the community, discussion, or literally anything.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
However you also take away player agency that you claim you want. I see Yurei actually arguing against you on this one and I agree with them. This actually adds to meaningful player agency without taking anything away(which you have stated is what you want correct, more options less streamline). It adds variety to the game. I think that you might want to actually start to look around and see that there are tons of creative people who won’t abuse the system. Will there be some? Yea. However this isn’t 3.5e where only a few builds ruled even though there was plenty of options. The playerbase is different and there are tons that are very creative.
However I can see that despite saying otherwise, you don’t actually believe in more meaning player agency as you have already decided to keep it limited. Maybe that is the difference between us, I see the possibilities and can already see people building different versions of stuff they want to play. Or even more meaningful choices than that. Again you can always ban the stuff from your game.
If people only take races that give them bonuses to their primary stats then they are only limiting their own options. They are the ones who have would be restricting their own choices. Not me.
Pick a race because it’s the one you want to play. If it just so happens to have a “bonus” to a prime stat then guess what? Bonus! That’s why it’s called a “bo-nus” and not a requirement.
Heh. I mean, there's a whole lot of grouchiness and rumble-grumbling and people very upset this rule is an Official Thing in an official Book come November, rather than a piece of homebrew they can shut down. Is it any surprise that a lot of that sort of grouchiness comes off as "stop playing D&D wrong, you whippersnappers!"?
I know this concept is utterly foreign to you, but maybe, just maybe, people who have played D&D for longer than you, through multiple editions, might have more experience than you, and might have more wisdom and insight on what is good for the game, than you.
Yeah, no. Experience is helpful, but "what is good for the game" is your own opinion. Move out of the way, the next generation is coming to take your D&D! This is gatekeeping, and not constructive to the community, discussion, or literally anything.
I have never heard this term "gate-keeping" until the last year or so. I have no clue what it means.
Horse poopy. The only reason AL exists is so that people can whip out their builds and measure. It’s the type 2 of D&D.
I was under the impression that a significant amount of people play AL because they don't have a consistent group they can play with, and want to be able to play D&D in a consistent way, at times that suit them.
Is AL actually that purely competitive?
If people live close enough to each other to go to the same AL, and they can manage to schedule themselves to all be available at the same place and time for AL, then why would they actually need AL to pull it off...? Obviously they all live locally, and can already manage to all get to get her and play. We know that because they do get together and play. Why don’t they just get together and play at a time that’s convent to them? That’s all a consistent group is, people who know each other, live locally, and get together and play.
As to your first point, I have been around long enough to know that any game with “builds” has a meta, and that people will build to the meta. I cannot speak to the current edition of 40k, but last edition was Imperial soup and Slam Captains for days. look at WoW. D&d is no different, the only reason we have the variety of “builds” we have now is because of those restrictions that make playing anything but an Aarakocra or a Yaun-Ti look more attractive for certain builds.
One thing Yurei and I both vehemently agree on is the lack of meaningful Player agency in character building. If Race becomes less meaningful, that gives us even fewer meaningful character choices.
As to your second point, I do not want Psionics to be “like they were before.” My only criteria is that they be “Different than Spellcasting, like they were different from Spellcasting before.” What shape that difference takes is less relevant to me. I LOVED the Psi Die, that never existed in Psionics before. Why did I love it? Because it was different than anything else we currently have in D&D. Again, my only criteria was that it be different than something we already have, Spellcasting.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I actually like this compromise. It allows each character to retain the individuality of their species, but also than be more of in individual with in it too. If I had PCs who felt the need for a different ASI method I'd do this, But frankly my PCs choose species not based on ASIs, because they don't care either way.
I do not object to negatives -- I think there should be some to balance out the positives -- but you cannot possibly imagine that people who consider +0 to be a "crippling penalty" to their character would find a -1 acceptable to anything.
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.
See, I have no problems with characters like that. More power to them.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Of course you are correct. I said the same thing earlier today in a post. The game will devolve into every char being an amorphous mass, with features and abilities all chosen from the same pool, and then a player will say "this is an elf", and another player, with precisely the same set of features, will say "this is a half-orc". It is inevitable that once this first wall is breached, the XGTE Feats will be attacked, and then all the species specific features. I am sure that the Drow 120' Darkvision will be very popular with anyone playing a Human.
40k, probably WoW (I don't know I haven't played it), M:tG are all games with meta builds. The difference between those games and D&D is that those are competitive games. D&D isn't. If someone tries to build a meta character by abusing the new rules, just don't allow them to do it.
On a side note, a lot of people are saying that if we removed Ability score increases from races, then it would just become everyone spamming the same race. I think it would instead make races more about features than Asi's. Instead of deciding your race from what ability buffs the race gives, you would do it from its other traits. Halfling for lucky, Drow for 120 ft darkvision, Aarockra for flight. You still have to make a decision. Finally, choosing to take a +2 and a +1 would be optional. So if you want to get more asi's, you could take a race like Half Elf which grants two to Charisma and plus one to two other scores.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Huh? Nah, that 1 point is only a big deal for the primary attribute of your class, it's usually about twice as important as secondary stats (such as Con) and probably four times as important as your dump stat, whatever that is (most often Str, Int, or Cha).
However you also take away player agency that you claim you want. I see Yurei actually arguing against you on this one and I agree with them. This actually adds to meaningful player agency without taking anything away(which you have stated is what you want correct, more options less streamline). It adds variety to the game. I think that you might want to actually start to look around and see that there are tons of creative people who won’t abuse the system. Will there be some? Yea. However this isn’t 3.5e where only a few builds ruled even though there was plenty of options. The playerbase is different and there are tons that are very creative.
However I can see that despite saying otherwise, you don’t actually believe in more meaning player agency as you have already decided to keep it limited. Maybe that is the difference between us, I see the possibilities and can already see people building different versions of stuff they want to play. Or even more meaningful choices than that. Again you can always ban the stuff from your game.
This. All of this. This is exactly what I have been trying to say. It opens up options. Thank you.
Horse poopy. The only reason AL exists is so that people can whip out their builds and measure. It’s the type 2 of D&D.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Or like many of us, we don't see the need for a Half-orc wizard to NEED a +2 in INT to make that character. Sposta has never said he prevents players from playing races that don't give bonuses to their prime stat. So that's a very projecting argument you are making.
I can make a Goliath Wizard with out without this new ASI system. Player agency is not being added by this system because that agency already exists. The only thing this new system will do is make my goliath wizard better if I so choose. It's the "win more" feature.
It isn't now and days, but D&D did have a competitive scene in the past. i didn't play back then but heard about it on podcasts from the earlier days of the game.
Is it a shame or an honor that I have easily more than that?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I was under the impression that a significant amount of people play AL because they don't have a consistent group they can play with, and want to be able to play D&D in a consistent way, at times that suit them.
Is AL actually that purely competitive?
Did you quote the wrong person? I have never argued against adding this feature in the game.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Yeah, no. Experience is helpful, but "what is good for the game" is your own opinion. Move out of the way, the next generation is coming to take your D&D! This is gatekeeping, and not constructive to the community, discussion, or literally anything.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Neither. It just means you've been playing for awhile. Saying you need x hours to have your opinion of D&D valid is gatekeeping.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
If people only take races that give them bonuses to their primary stats then they are only limiting their own options. They are the ones who have would be restricting their own choices. Not me.
Pick a race because it’s the one you want to play. If it just so happens to have a “bonus” to a prime stat then guess what? Bonus! That’s why it’s called a “bo-nus” and not a requirement.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I have never heard this term "gate-keeping" until the last year or so. I have no clue what it means.
If people live close enough to each other to go to the same AL, and they can manage to schedule themselves to all be available at the same place and time for AL, then why would they actually need AL to pull it off...? Obviously they all live locally, and can already manage to all get to get her and play. We know that because they do get together and play. Why don’t they just get together and play at a time that’s convent to them? That’s all a consistent group is, people who know each other, live locally, and get together and play.
So... why do they really need AL for that...?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting