Sure a PC Orc may be naturally strong. But maybe that one over there was born weak and made up for it by being charismatic and well liked by everyone. Both can coexist.
That is represented by putting a lower number in Str and a high number in Cha for the weak yet Charismatic Orc.
And what if you want to emphasize that your weak orc is weak? Guess what, you can't because you're always stuck with that bonus to Str. Aligning your stat array to fix a problem with your character build is no fix at all.
Though at the end of the day I suppose none of these arguments matter. The book coming out will include more flexible races and everyone can be happy about it because even the people who don't like it can easily ignore it and save their money. Because yes, it is that easy for any DM to ignore it because there will always be players willing to submit to any reasonable restriction of a DM. And who knows? If enough people refuse to buy it then that will speak louder to Wizards than anything.
Sure a PC Orc may be naturally strong. But maybe that one over there was born weak and made up for it by being charismatic and well liked by everyone. Both can coexist.
That is represented by putting a lower number in Str and a high number in Cha for the weak yet Charismatic Orc.
And what if you want to emphasize that your weak orc is weak? Guess what, you can't because you're always stuck with that bonus to Str. Aligning your stat array to fix a problem with your character build is no fix at all.
Though at the end of the day I suppose none of these arguments matter. The book coming out will include more flexible races and everyone can be happy about it because even the people who don't like it can easily ignore it and save their money. Because yes, it is that easy for any DM to ignore it because there will always be players willing to submit to any reasonable restriction of a DM. And who knows? If enough people refuse to buy it then that will speak louder to Wizards than anything.
They are weak, for an orc. Not sure what the problem is here. If you put a low enough number in (say your 8), would you say they are strong?
The lowest Point Buy and Standard Array allows is an 8. So a weak Orc will always have a 10 in Str. If you roll for stats then we might as well throw balance out the window because you could either get a hilariously weak Orc, something equivalent to Point Buy, or an Orc way stronger than you wanted.
Sure a PC Orc may be naturally strong. But maybe that one over there was born weak and made up for it by being charismatic and well liked by everyone. Both can coexist.
That is represented by putting a lower number in Str and a high number in Cha for the weak yet Charismatic Orc.
And what if you want to emphasize that your weak orc is weak? Guess what, you can't because you're always stuck with that bonus to Str. Aligning your stat array to fix a problem with your character build is no fix at all.
Though at the end of the day I suppose none of these arguments matter. The book coming out will include more flexible races and everyone can be happy about it because even the people who don't like it can easily ignore it and save their money. Because yes, it is that easy for any DM to ignore it because there will always be players willing to submit to any reasonable restriction of a DM. And who knows? If enough people refuse to buy it then that will speak louder to Wizards than anything.
They are weak, for an orc. Not sure what the problem is here. If you put a low enough number in (say your 8), would you say they are strong?
The lowest Point Buy and Standard Array allows is an 8. So a weak Orc will always have a 10 in Str. If you roll for stats then we might as well throw balance out the window because you could either get a hilariously weak Orc, something equivalent to Point Buy, or an Orc way stronger than you wanted.
You are avoiding my question. Do you consider a strength 10 character strong?
No. But they aren't weak either. I didn't avoid it because I thought the point was obvious. "Weak for an Orc" wouldn't be the intent for this imaginary character. "Weak" is. You can't achieve that without rolling and, again, at that rate you might as well just start homebrewing for a specific character concept that should not be this hard to get working because it is extremely simple. If you want to build an objectively weak Orc in the eyes of any race that isn't game breaking and probably wouldn't be lore unfriendly since it's just a single orc. Not a representation of its species.
Sure a PC Orc may be naturally strong. But maybe that one over there was born weak and made up for it by being charismatic and well liked by everyone. Both can coexist.
That is represented by putting a lower number in Str and a high number in Cha for the weak yet Charismatic Orc.
And what if you want to emphasize that your weak orc is weak? Guess what, you can't because you're always stuck with that bonus to Str. Aligning your stat array to fix a problem with your character build is no fix at all.
Though at the end of the day I suppose none of these arguments matter. The book coming out will include more flexible races and everyone can be happy about it because even the people who don't like it can easily ignore it and save their money. Because yes, it is that easy for any DM to ignore it because there will always be players willing to submit to any reasonable restriction of a DM. And who knows? If enough people refuse to buy it then that will speak louder to Wizards than anything.
They are weak, for an orc. Not sure what the problem is here. If you put a low enough number in (say your 8), would you say they are strong?
The lowest Point Buy and Standard Array allows is an 8. So a weak Orc will always have a 10 in Str. If you roll for stats then we might as well throw balance out the window because you could either get a hilariously weak Orc, something equivalent to Point Buy, or an Orc way stronger than you wanted.
You are avoiding my question. Do you consider a strength 10 character strong?
I certainly do not. I also expect that a weakling orc (10 str) is still going to be stronger than a weakling elf (8 str). I don't see a problem with this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Sure a PC Orc may be naturally strong. But maybe that one over there was born weak and made up for it by being charismatic and well liked by everyone. Both can coexist.
That is represented by putting a lower number in Str and a high number in Cha for the weak yet Charismatic Orc.
And what if you want to emphasize that your weak orc is weak? Guess what, you can't because you're always stuck with that bonus to Str. Aligning your stat array to fix a problem with your character build is no fix at all.
Though at the end of the day I suppose none of these arguments matter. The book coming out will include more flexible races and everyone can be happy about it because even the people who don't like it can easily ignore it and save their money. Because yes, it is that easy for any DM to ignore it because there will always be players willing to submit to any reasonable restriction of a DM. And who knows? If enough people refuse to buy it then that will speak louder to Wizards than anything.
No...just no. An Orc can be weak RELATIVE to other Orcs, and still stronger than most creatures. The existing system already takes that into account. You can have a Half-Orc with a Str of 10, which is exceedingly weak to other Half-Orcs, but stronger than the average Gnome, and that makes perfect sense. The weakest elephant is umpteen times stronger than the strongest man alive. You want to play a Half-Orc with a Str of 10 that was cast out of his tribe because he was so weak, relative to other Half-Orcs, no problem. But the inherent genetics of that species make them on average, stronger than other species.
And there you go again, saying this will stay optional. As I said earlier, my guess is 18 months, tops, this will be the only official system. No way WOTC introduces such massive changes to the game and say "yeah, you can choose between systems."
Sure a PC Orc may be naturally strong. But maybe that one over there was born weak and made up for it by being charismatic and well liked by everyone. Both can coexist.
That is represented by putting a lower number in Str and a high number in Cha for the weak yet Charismatic Orc.
And what if you want to emphasize that your weak orc is weak? Guess what, you can't because you're always stuck with that bonus to Str. Aligning your stat array to fix a problem with your character build is no fix at all.
Though at the end of the day I suppose none of these arguments matter. The book coming out will include more flexible races and everyone can be happy about it because even the people who don't like it can easily ignore it and save their money. Because yes, it is that easy for any DM to ignore it because there will always be players willing to submit to any reasonable restriction of a DM. And who knows? If enough people refuse to buy it then that will speak louder to Wizards than anything.
No...just no. An Orc can be weak RELATIVE to other Orcs, and still stronger than most creatures. The existing system already takes that into account. You can have a Half-Orc with a Str of 10, which is exceedingly weak to other Half-Orcs, but stronger than the average Gnome, and that makes perfect sense. The weakest elephant is umpteen times stronger than the strongest man alive. You want to play a Half-Orc with a Str of 10 that was cast out of his tribe because he was so weak, relative to other Half-Orcs, no problem. But the inherent genetics of that species make them on average, stronger than other species.
And there you go again, saying this will stay optional. As I said earlier, my guess is 18 months, tops, this will be the only official system. No way WOTC introduces such massive changes to the game and say "yeah, you can choose between systems."
The system has no basis in real world physics. It tries in some cases but it is no simulator. It's a game with magic. Physics was thrown out the window long ago with only the vaguest hint of it existing in some mechanics for the sake of having some frame of reference.
That's fine though. If that's how you run your game more power to you. I'll be over here enjoying the new options (or complaining about the wacky decisions of the Almighty Wizards) when the book comes out.
I think I've had my fill of this interesting debate. Have a good day. c:
The lowest Point Buy and Standard Array allows is an 8. So a weak Orc will always have a 10 in Str.
And that’s precisely why I prefer rolling for stats. I love a PC with a 6 in something.
Actually, I just had an idea for an alternative Ability Score generation system that I think I’ll try in future: everybody gets a 6, a 16, and rolls the other four stats by rolling 2d6+6 for each of them.
In theory, you could play an orc with a 5 strength. It is within the actual stat range of orcs. If it really would make for a more interesting character and you are not merely asking for it as some sort of attempt to leverage it into some other stat being exceptionally high, then most experienced DM's that I have known (myself included) would simply say 'go for it.'
Agreed. And if using point-buy, I would even give the player 3 more points for dropping an 8 to a 6. That way they could get a little boost to something else too.
I like the Point Buy system and racial stat benfits/penalties (or racial traits).
You have a base set of 8 across the board and every point you put in from there goes for your training/education/life-experiences up to the point you become an adventurer. I don't mind an orc starting off with a base of 10 because of the +2 bonus, because that is still the strength of an average person. A half-orc, without training, is at best, average in the strength department, and this is including the active life-style of an adventurer of hiking, camping and fighting.
It's not the numbers that make a character, it's how they're played.
I'm currently playing a halfling forge domain cleric who only has 9 charisma and I gave him a fun quirk to explain why he isn't very charismatic, he's too focused on the quality of people's equipment and how it reflects on the local blacksmiths, who could be his rivals, to pay attention to things like names or faces. It's become a fun thing that makes him fun to play, by emphasizing a negative and turning it into something unique.
Elves get +2 Dex because of their superior vision, excellent hand-eye coordination, and hyper flexibility. Most likely because of a combination of a greater range of pupillary dilation, more rapid pupillary responses to light and distance, more rods in their eyes for better light absorption and an ability to see into the UV spectrum due to altered/additional cones in their eyes, a more direct brain link to the image (human eyes put everything to the brain upside down and our brains need a microsecond to invert the image for us), more flexible ligaments and tendons, and higher fast twitch muscle response, and a shorter distance between neurons for faster reaction times. Those would be genetic traits.
That couldn't be further from the truth. Elves have Darkvision. Dex has nothing to do with sight. If anything, Wisdom does because of perception.
If vision and hand/eye coordination have nothing to do with Dex, then why Dex is the Attack stat for ranged weapons in 5e?!?
Because no one designing the game has likely ever used a bow. Logically there'd be a Str requirement for bows. A size requirement for longbows (or war bows). And then...well a Wis check to target an enemy, a Dex check to steady your aim, maybe an Int check to account for wind speed.
Short answer? It's a game. Physics has little to do with it.
Strength to draw, dex to aim. There should be minimum strengths for bows, but you still aim using hand/eye coordination (dex). 'Back in the day' in 1e, there were 'strength bows' i.e. you needed a special bow designed for your strength if you wanted to get your strength bonus on damage. It was still dex to hit though.
I don’t see the DEX at all. To aim you still need to able to be able to know your surroundings while you aim(even if you are shooting fast). This is so you don’t hit anything that you don’t intend to at all. Even when in a line of archers, you should be aware of the other archers are and how far down range your enemy is.
Formation fighting is a completely different thing. Formation archers are aiming at an area and bombarding rather than sniping. However if you feel that dex is not relevant, do you believe that snipers using rifles are using strength to achieve long range accuracy?
You do know that that Bows and Rifles are two different skill sets. No rifles shouldn’t be using STR as the is no strength is needed to fire a gun(maybe some CON to stop some of the kickback).
Elves get +2 Dex because of their superior vision, excellent hand-eye coordination, and hyper flexibility. Most likely because of a combination of a greater range of pupillary dilation, more rapid pupillary responses to light and distance, more rods in their eyes for better light absorption and an ability to see into the UV spectrum due to altered/additional cones in their eyes, a more direct brain link to the image (human eyes put everything to the brain upside down and our brains need a microsecond to invert the image for us), more flexible ligaments and tendons, and higher fast twitch muscle response, and a shorter distance between neurons for faster reaction times. Those would be genetic traits.
That couldn't be further from the truth. Elves have Darkvision. Dex has nothing to do with sight. If anything, Wisdom does because of perception.
If vision and hand/eye coordination have nothing to do with Dex, then why Dex is the Attack stat for ranged weapons in 5e?!?
Because no one designing the game has likely ever used a bow. Logically there'd be a Str requirement for bows. A size requirement for longbows (or war bows). And then...well a Wis check to target an enemy, a Dex check to steady your aim, maybe an Int check to account for wind speed.
Short answer? It's a game. Physics has little to do with it.
Strength to draw, dex to aim. There should be minimum strengths for bows, but you still aim using hand/eye coordination (dex). 'Back in the day' in 1e, there were 'strength bows' i.e. you needed a special bow designed for your strength if you wanted to get your strength bonus on damage. It was still dex to hit though.
I don’t see the DEX at all. To aim you still need to able to be able to know your surroundings while you aim(even if you are shooting fast). This is so you don’t hit anything that you don’t intend to at all. Even when in a line of archers, you should be aware of the other archers are and how far down range your enemy is.
Formation fighting is a completely different thing. Formation archers are aiming at an area and bombarding rather than sniping. However if you feel that dex is not relevant, do you believe that snipers using rifles are using strength to achieve long range accuracy?
You do know that that Bows and Rifles are two different skill sets. No rifles shouldn’t be using STR as the is no strength is needed to fire a gun(maybe some CON to stop some of the kickback).
As someone who does own and shoot guns at a firing range, I would definitely say STR is a requirement for guns. They're a lot heavier than they look and you need to be able to compensate for the recoil.
I agree CON could be used for recoil, if you're using a rifle or a shotgun because then the recoil hits you instead of sending the barrel flying upwards as much as a handgun (still does to a lesser degree though).
Within 18 months, I am looking forward to telling players, "Sorry, I don't care that it is in the new PHB and considered canon. Your Halfing can't have a starting strength of 16, Drow Darkvision, and Tabaxi Feline Agility".
That is the endgame of this whole thing.
Yup.
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.
Elves get +2 Dex because of their superior vision, excellent hand-eye coordination, and hyper flexibility. Most likely because of a combination of a greater range of pupillary dilation, more rapid pupillary responses to light and distance, more rods in their eyes for better light absorption and an ability to see into the UV spectrum due to altered/additional cones in their eyes, a more direct brain link to the image (human eyes put everything to the brain upside down and our brains need a microsecond to invert the image for us), more flexible ligaments and tendons, and higher fast twitch muscle response, and a shorter distance between neurons for faster reaction times. Those would be genetic traits.
That couldn't be further from the truth. Elves have Darkvision. Dex has nothing to do with sight. If anything, Wisdom does because of perception.
If vision and hand/eye coordination have nothing to do with Dex, then why Dex is the Attack stat for ranged weapons in 5e?!?
Because no one designing the game has likely ever used a bow. Logically there'd be a Str requirement for bows. A size requirement for longbows (or war bows). And then...well a Wis check to target an enemy, a Dex check to steady your aim, maybe an Int check to account for wind speed.
Short answer? It's a game. Physics has little to do with it.
Strength to draw, dex to aim. There should be minimum strengths for bows, but you still aim using hand/eye coordination (dex). 'Back in the day' in 1e, there were 'strength bows' i.e. you needed a special bow designed for your strength if you wanted to get your strength bonus on damage. It was still dex to hit though.
I don’t see the DEX at all. To aim you still need to able to be able to know your surroundings while you aim(even if you are shooting fast). This is so you don’t hit anything that you don’t intend to at all. Even when in a line of archers, you should be aware of the other archers are and how far down range your enemy is.
Formation fighting is a completely different thing. Formation archers are aiming at an area and bombarding rather than sniping. However if you feel that dex is not relevant, do you believe that snipers using rifles are using strength to achieve long range accuracy?
You do know that that Bows and Rifles are two different skill sets. No rifles shouldn’t be using STR as the is no strength is needed to fire a gun(maybe some CON to stop some of the kickback).
They are different skill sets, but please explain how higher strength helps you place shots. If you have a light pull bow, you literally cannot pull it back more than a certain point. You would either snap the string or the bow. However, you can nevertheless aim a bow.
You need STR to pull back the string. Yes on a light pull bow you don’t need much Strength but on a heavier bow you would. I would that most adventurers are not having a light pull bow though. It is most likely a heavier pull. You can also mess Up a shot by not using the correct bow(called over-bowing), not having the right draw length, or having a weak pull(the arrow will not land where you need it). If have incorrect finger placement you can pluck the string causing your arrow to miss as well(three fingers is all you have to pull a bow back with).
Within 18 months, I am looking forward to telling players, "Sorry, I don't care that it is in the new PHB and considered canon. Your Halfing can't have a starting strength of 16, Drow Darkvision, and Tabaxi Feline Agility".
That is the endgame of this whole thing.
Yup.
I highly doubt that that will happen.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Within 18 months, I am looking forward to telling players, "Sorry, I don't care that it is in the new PHB and considered canon. Your Halfing can't have a starting strength of 16, Drow Darkvision, and Tabaxi Feline Agility".
That is the endgame of this whole thing.
Yup.
I highly doubt that that will happen.
I love the hyperbole when we haven’t even seen the what it is even going to look like yet.
All right. One more time maybe, before Stormknight bans me for having the most bannable face on DDB.
AHEM.
1.) "This Lineage system completely devalues species choice. Everything is just variant human now." First of all, nobody actually knows that. It's quite possible that 'biological' traits such as an aarakocra's wings, a minotaurs horns, and the like will all be non-negotiable. The other stuff should have always been negotiable because the player decides which culture their character originated from, not the PHB.
Second of all, only if the DM lets it. If you need a fixed, rigid and unbending three ability points distributed just so to get into the head of your character and play the role of a member of a fantasy species beyond humanity, that is a you problem, not a D&D problem.
2.) "This rule is going to make character creation too complicated. Too many decisions to make when all I want is to pick a species and play it." ...then pick a species and play it. Ignore the Tasha's Cauldron rules entirely. Or if you're the DM, disallow Tasha's Cauldron creation rules at your table. Nobody is going to hire a team of ninjas to sneak into your house, defecate on your PHB, and beat you over the head with an advance copy of Tasha's Cauldron until you agree to use everything printed in it.
3.) "This rule is going to suck for Adventurer's League. How am I supposed to run an AL game when everybody can do whatever they like with their character?" First of all, again, you have no idea how this will impact Adventurer's League.
Second of all, Adventurer's League has allowed mix-and-match custom backgrounds for forever and a day, and nobody's ever had anything bad to say about that.
Third of all, it's not actually the DM's fault if a shifty AL player manages to bamboozle them into allowing something they technically shouldn't have through charsheet legerdemain.
Fourth of all, why are we upset about players doing 'whatever the like' with their characters, again? Within the punitive restrictions of AL, of course.
Fifth of all, it's Adventurer's League. You agreed to surrender control over your game and the people who play in it the moment you agreed to run an AL game instead of regular D&D. How is Tasha's Cauldron any different than any other +1 sourcebook that mucks about with rules from the PHB?
4.) "I have a controversial and upsetting opinion about [insert related but controversial IRL topic here] and this rule triggers me." Sorry to hear that. See Stormknight's post.
5.) "This rule only exists so that min-maxers can have their cake and eat it, too." And?
6.) "I REALLY hate min-maxers. Like...REEAAALLY hate them." Sorry to hear that. See Stormknight's post.
7.) "This new rule makes it too easy to come up with illogical and nonsensical characters whose stats just don't make sense." This is a game where a robot wizard with a retractable greataxe and a retractable magic wand built into the same arm can go on adventures with a dinosaur-riding jungle pygmy and a man whose soul is permanently linked to an intangible spirit from Nightmaretopia, who all ride around on a magic war blimp powered by imprisoned sentient lightning and piloted by someone whose magic birthmark gives him the power to mingle his soul with a magic war blimp powered by imprisoned sentient lightning.
The dinosaur-riding pygmy having a higher number in his Strength box than the robot wizard does is the part that gets your goat up?
8.) "My players don't like it when I tell them they can't use a rule in the books. How am I supposed to stop them from doing whatever they like with this new book?" Grow a spine. It may suck for an afternoon, but either your players will get over it or your table was too unstable to last anyways. If they push, push back. You're the DM, you're allowed to have fun too. Your players aren't going to hire a team of ninjas to sneak into your house, defecate on your PHB, and beat you over the head with an advance copy of Tasha's Cauldron until you agree to use everything printed in it.
10.) "Back in MY day, we rolled for stats - in order - AFTER deciding which race and class we were gonna play. Our characters all died before third level, and we just looked at the DM after he finished narrating and said 'please sir, may I have another?' Y'all kids these days don't know how good you have it." Okay, boomer.
11.) "Why can't you just homebrew something? Everybody else is fine with homebrew, we don't need this stupid rule." First of all: why should I have to?
Second of all: A strong majority of DMs flat-out disallow homebrew. Especially homebrew that affects species or class. J-Craw has said that Wizards prints these rules, in part, specifically to remind DMs that it's okay to flex.
12.) "I just don't heckin' like it, and I don't wanna use it." Then don't. Nobody is going to hire a team of ninjas to sneak into your house, defecate on your PHB, and beat you over the head with an advance copy of Tasha's Cauldron until you agree to use everything printed in it.
13.) "Somebody hired a team of ninjas to sneak into my house, defecate on my PHB, and beat me over the head with an advance copy of Tasha's Cauldron until I agreed to use everything printed in it. NOW what, smartass?" You probably should've filmed it. That would've made for an amazing YouTube video, you coulda made enough money on it to buy a new PHB.
Within 18 months, I am looking forward to telling players, "Sorry, I don't care that it is in the new PHB and considered canon. Your Halfing can't have a starting strength of 16, Drow Darkvision, and Tabaxi Feline Agility".
That is the endgame of this whole thing.
I won't lie, I am already fully prepared to say "if you cannot find that race in the 2e players handbook, it does not exist in my world. Thank you, and please drive through.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Elves get +2 Dex because of their superior vision, excellent hand-eye coordination, and hyper flexibility. Most likely because of a combination of a greater range of pupillary dilation, more rapid pupillary responses to light and distance, more rods in their eyes for better light absorption and an ability to see into the UV spectrum due to altered/additional cones in their eyes, a more direct brain link to the image (human eyes put everything to the brain upside down and our brains need a microsecond to invert the image for us), more flexible ligaments and tendons, and higher fast twitch muscle response, and a shorter distance between neurons for faster reaction times. Those would be genetic traits.
That couldn't be further from the truth. Elves have Darkvision. Dex has nothing to do with sight. If anything, Wisdom does because of perception.
If vision and hand/eye coordination have nothing to do with Dex, then why Dex is the Attack stat for ranged weapons in 5e?!?
Because no one designing the game has likely ever used a bow. Logically there'd be a Str requirement for bows. A size requirement for longbows (or war bows). And then...well a Wis check to target an enemy, a Dex check to steady your aim, maybe an Int check to account for wind speed.
Short answer? It's a game. Physics has little to do with it.
Strength to draw, dex to aim. There should be minimum strengths for bows, but you still aim using hand/eye coordination (dex). 'Back in the day' in 1e, there were 'strength bows' i.e. you needed a special bow designed for your strength if you wanted to get your strength bonus on damage. It was still dex to hit though.
I don’t see the DEX at all. To aim you still need to able to be able to know your surroundings while you aim(even if you are shooting fast). This is so you don’t hit anything that you don’t intend to at all. Even when in a line of archers, you should be aware of the other archers are and how far down range your enemy is.
Formation fighting is a completely different thing. Formation archers are aiming at an area and bombarding rather than sniping. However if you feel that dex is not relevant, do you believe that snipers using rifles are using strength to achieve long range accuracy?
You do know that that Bows and Rifles are two different skill sets. No rifles shouldn’t be using STR as the is no strength is needed to fire a gun(maybe some CON to stop some of the kickback).
As someone who does own and shoot guns at a firing range, I would definitely say STR is a requirement for guns. They're a lot heavier than they look and you need to be able to compensate for the recoil.
I agree CON could be used for recoil, if you're using a rifle or a shotgun because then the recoil hits you instead of sending the barrel flying upwards as much as a handgun (still does to a lesser degree though).
Sorry when I was shooting guns we were either prone or supported(ie by the side of a foxhole) and rarely had to test unsupported. It also has been about 16 years since I was last at the range and at least 11 since I last held a gun. I do apologize for that. Sorry for misspeaking.
And what if you want to emphasize that your weak orc is weak? Guess what, you can't because you're always stuck with that bonus to Str. Aligning your stat array to fix a problem with your character build is no fix at all.
Though at the end of the day I suppose none of these arguments matter. The book coming out will include more flexible races and everyone can be happy about it because even the people who don't like it can easily ignore it and save their money. Because yes, it is that easy for any DM to ignore it because there will always be players willing to submit to any reasonable restriction of a DM. And who knows? If enough people refuse to buy it then that will speak louder to Wizards than anything.
The lowest Point Buy and Standard Array allows is an 8. So a weak Orc will always have a 10 in Str. If you roll for stats then we might as well throw balance out the window because you could either get a hilariously weak Orc, something equivalent to Point Buy, or an Orc way stronger than you wanted.
No. But they aren't weak either. I didn't avoid it because I thought the point was obvious. "Weak for an Orc" wouldn't be the intent for this imaginary character. "Weak" is. You can't achieve that without rolling and, again, at that rate you might as well just start homebrewing for a specific character concept that should not be this hard to get working because it is extremely simple. If you want to build an objectively weak Orc in the eyes of any race that isn't game breaking and probably wouldn't be lore unfriendly since it's just a single orc. Not a representation of its species.
I certainly do not. I also expect that a weakling orc (10 str) is still going to be stronger than a weakling elf (8 str). I don't see a problem with this.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
No...just no. An Orc can be weak RELATIVE to other Orcs, and still stronger than most creatures. The existing system already takes that into account. You can have a Half-Orc with a Str of 10, which is exceedingly weak to other Half-Orcs, but stronger than the average Gnome, and that makes perfect sense. The weakest elephant is umpteen times stronger than the strongest man alive. You want to play a Half-Orc with a Str of 10 that was cast out of his tribe because he was so weak, relative to other Half-Orcs, no problem. But the inherent genetics of that species make them on average, stronger than other species.
And there you go again, saying this will stay optional. As I said earlier, my guess is 18 months, tops, this will be the only official system. No way WOTC introduces such massive changes to the game and say "yeah, you can choose between systems."
The system has no basis in real world physics. It tries in some cases but it is no simulator. It's a game with magic. Physics was thrown out the window long ago with only the vaguest hint of it existing in some mechanics for the sake of having some frame of reference.
That's fine though. If that's how you run your game more power to you. I'll be over here enjoying the new options (or complaining about the wacky decisions of the Almighty Wizards) when the book comes out.
I think I've had my fill of this interesting debate. Have a good day. c:
And that’s precisely why I prefer rolling for stats. I love a PC with a 6 in something.
Actually, I just had an idea for an alternative Ability Score generation system that I think I’ll try in future: everybody gets a 6, a 16, and rolls the other four stats by rolling 2d6+6 for each of them.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Agreed. And if using point-buy, I would even give the player 3 more points for dropping an 8 to a 6. That way they could get a little boost to something else too.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I like the Point Buy system and racial stat benfits/penalties (or racial traits).
You have a base set of 8 across the board and every point you put in from there goes for your training/education/life-experiences up to the point you become an adventurer. I don't mind an orc starting off with a base of 10 because of the +2 bonus, because that is still the strength of an average person. A half-orc, without training, is at best, average in the strength department, and this is including the active life-style of an adventurer of hiking, camping and fighting.
It's not the numbers that make a character, it's how they're played.
I'm currently playing a halfling forge domain cleric who only has 9 charisma and I gave him a fun quirk to explain why he isn't very charismatic, he's too focused on the quality of people's equipment and how it reflects on the local blacksmiths, who could be his rivals, to pay attention to things like names or faces. It's become a fun thing that makes him fun to play, by emphasizing a negative and turning it into something unique.
You do know that that Bows and Rifles are two different skill sets. No rifles shouldn’t be using STR as the is no strength is needed to fire a gun(maybe some CON to stop some of the kickback).
Actually, you would use Str to compensate for the recoil.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
As someone who does own and shoot guns at a firing range, I would definitely say STR is a requirement for guns. They're a lot heavier than they look and you need to be able to compensate for the recoil.
I agree CON could be used for recoil, if you're using a rifle or a shotgun because then the recoil hits you instead of sending the barrel flying upwards as much as a handgun (still does to a lesser degree though).
Yup.
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.
You need STR to pull back the string. Yes on a light pull bow you don’t need much Strength but on a heavier bow you would. I would that most adventurers are not having a light pull bow though. It is most likely a heavier pull. You can also mess Up a shot by not using the correct bow(called over-bowing), not having the right draw length, or having a weak pull(the arrow will not land where you need it). If have incorrect finger placement you can pluck the string causing your arrow to miss as well(three fingers is all you have to pull a bow back with).
I highly doubt that that will happen.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I love the hyperbole when we haven’t even seen the what it is even going to look like yet.
I've fired bows and guns. Both are things that require Strength but they use different muscles.
This wins...so hard.
I won't lie, I am already fully prepared to say "if you cannot find that race in the 2e players handbook, it does not exist in my world. Thank you, and please drive through.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Sorry when I was shooting guns we were either prone or supported(ie by the side of a foxhole) and rarely had to test unsupported. It also has been about 16 years since I was last at the range and at least 11 since I last held a gun.
I do apologize for that. Sorry for misspeaking.