New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 181 to 210 of 284
  1. - Top - End - #181
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2010

    Default Re: Better alternative than stat-less races

    Quote Originally Posted by Anymage View Post
    If we assume that half orcs are larger and have heartier builds than other races, I think it's fair to look askance at the half orc wizard who decides that strength is a safe dump stat. Ditto with the gnome fighter who thinks that it's safe to dump intelligence, or the elven paladin who decides to go heavy armor and dump dexterity. That does feel like just digging for the most useful racials. Forcing any of the above to sacrifice prime stat as opposed to "highest stat after the important ones" (keeping in mind that most very few characters leverage more than three or four stats) is a much bigger ask and makes them much less likely to be seen.

    Spitballing an idea that just hit me while I was writing this, I wonder how bad an optional rule giving certain races stat minimums might be. The low end and implied medium are kept, while the top end doesn't feel as limited to only the right races.
    I mean, even if you want to do things via stats, there are a lot of other ways to implement stat affinity than modifiers that you couldn't just buy your way out of. For example, automatic advantage on skill checks involving the favored stat and automatic disadvantage on skill checks involving the disfavored stat, but things like attack rolls are left alone. If you've got automatic disadvantage, then even if you raise that stat to a 20 you're going to be a different 20 than someone without that; if you've got automatic advantage, even if you dumpstat to an 8, you're still going to be more consistent than someone without it. Or as a less potent effect, rolls with favored stats have a higher minimum value on the d20 and rolls with disfavored stats have a higher critical failure range. Or getting more interesting, change what stats mean - ability to treat the results of Strength checks to jump as double, ability to make a free Dexterity check each round in order to move an extra 10ft in a given round, ability to gain extra uses of per-long-rest/per-day abilities from Constitution modifier if positive, etc.

  2. - Top - End - #182
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    BlueWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Better alternative than stat-less races

    Quote Originally Posted by KyleG View Post
    Slight aside but I'm happy to be directed to a different resource.
    How much does everyone being 20 in main stat by 8 affect the difficulty the dm should be throwing at the table vs say the 18 or even everyone on 16 (players likely taking feats?
    I mean let's go basic with fighter, rogue, wizard and cleric L4 and no ones on 18 primary start...does that affect the difficulty the dm should be throwing out there vs the party with 18 or (let's go crazy) 20 in primary stat?
    It depends on what you think of as encounter design functioning normally.
    If you take that medium encounters should be the norm, and to never use a higher CR monster than the level of the party, then challenge will need to be upped.

    If your of the mind that easy and medium encounters are, at best, meant to cause HP damage that may or may not require healing resources. And deadly is meant to be used to provide significant challenge to the party.
    20 by 8 is perfectly fine, and should be mildly expected (feats being used, likely will push this down).

    Both are given as system expectations in the DMG for encounter design, so dealers choice.

    I have personally found the system structures are generally fine with hitting 20 by level 4, and 20 doesn't cause system distress at any level of play (probably why its the cap).

    Note if you use the dmg encounter rules as written, you could probably have a party with a stat ceiling of 8 and be fine, it is very conservative in terms of challenge.
    My sig is something witty.

    78% of DM's started their first campaign in a tavern. If you're one of the 22% that didn't, copy and paste this into your signature.

  3. - Top - End - #183
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    EvilClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Somewhere
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Better alternative than stat-less races

    Quote Originally Posted by strangebloke View Post
    I mean, no? Not at all.

    You can just be a runt. You're a half orc, you grew up with orcs, you had to fight for scraps at the orphanage and you always lost out to the bigger guys, meaning you often went hungry and ended up malnourished and small even compared to a human. Your interest in magic and your efforts to develop your mind flow out of a desire to compensate for your small stature.

    like seriously I am begging you guys, exercise a bit of creativity here.
    Sure. You can be a runt for an orc or a half-orc. But, by nature of NOT being human, even a runt of an orc is still stronger than a human who grew under the same circumstances, and possibly just as strong as an average human, especially if you aren't rolling and the worse base value you can get is 8.

    Of course, if you're rolling for stats, you can be weaker than average human even with +2 Str, but I wouldn't be surprised if rolling for stats was reduced to a variant in D&Done or even removed as an option.

    Quote Originally Posted by Witty Username View Post
    20 by 8 is perfectly fine, and should be mildly expected (feats being used, likely will push this down).
    20 at any level puts you above the curve, it's NEVER expected by the system, but it's not gamebreaking.
    It's Eberron, not ebberon.
    It's not high magic, it's wide magic.
    And it's definitely not steampunk. The only time steam gets involved is when the fire and water elementals break loose.

  4. - Top - End - #184
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Saint Louis
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Better alternative than stat-less races

    Quote Originally Posted by qube View Post
    Like many, I don't like the way D&D 5e moved away from racial bonusses. I understand why: from a game-mechanicaly point, as long as there's a train of thought you should max out your main ability score ... then races not boosting said score simply won't be an option. And that's a bad thing.

    Imagine you want to make Auroth, a brutal Orc Sorcerer.
    Orcs don't get the sorcerer casting stat? too bad for you.

    But I like to look at things from a narative point of view.

    From a narative point, there's no problem with a half orc fighter and an eladrin fighter being equally capable - but it doesn't make sense they'd be equally strong. After all, while the half orc's mighty swings might cleave through armor, the elf's graceful strikes draws blood between the plates.

    high elf fighter, orc fighter, gnome fighter ... STR20 the lot of them

    ---------------------------

    That's why I suggest something else
    combat style scores

    Auroth, Orc, Acolyte Sorcerer 1
    Str 14 (+2) Dex 12 (+1) Con 16 (+3) Int 13 (+1) Wis 10 (+0) Cha 11 (+0)
    Weapon 12(+1) Defense 13(+1) Toughness 16(+3) Mysticism 16 (+3)
    Athletics (+3), Arcana (+3) Religion (+2) Insight Skill (+2) Intimidation (+2) Persuasion(+2)
    AC: 11, hp: 9
    Quarterstaff. +3 to hit, 1d6+1 damage.
    Spells +5 to hit, DC 13


    There are four combat style scores:
    • (WPN) weapon (attack & damage)
    • (DEF) defense (AC, initiative)
    • (THG) toughness (hit point)
    • (MYS) mysticism (magic, innate abilities, ...)

    At character creation, you put 15, 14, 13, 12 in them. Then add a +2 to one and a +1 to another. Every time your ability scores increase, you may likewise pick these scores to boost.

    (Dirty little secret : mechanically, combat style scores are just what your standard array abilty scores would be if optimized them. )

    Your combat statistics are caclulated from those.
    • Your sword doesn't use PROF+STR, but PROF+WPN, and the damage is 1d8+WPN.
    • Your AC is not 10+DEX but 10+DEF
    • ...


    Auroth Might be strong, he's not quite melee focussed, so isn't that good with his quarterstaff.
    Quarterstaff. +[proficiency+weapon] to hit, 1d6+[weapon] damage. (instead of strength)
    in Auroth's flavor he uses bloodmagic, he's ability to manifest powerful spells despite not being that charismatic.
    spells use mysticism instead of charisma to cast spells

    Most things are common sense, but it's important to note that sometimes classes fuse two fighting styles.
    • barbarians mix toughness & mysticism (their abilities work on CON)
    • monks & rogues & rangers mix weapon and defense (they attack and defend on DEX)
    • hexblades fuse weapon & mysticism (they attack on CHA)

    while SAD classes might virtually not use certain abilities (ex. melee for wizards)

    -----------------


    Or would you rather have a halfling swashbuckler-style fighter who uses taunts and feints as defense? A sword wielding elf fighter (a slashing sword, not a rapier)? A strong smithy dwarf artificier, ... These, and much more options are now viable options - without having to trade in flavor for game mechanics.
    Seems like a lot of effort to say "play my way or get out".


    I think adventurers, heroes and villains, are assumed by the base game to be rare among most settings so having a player with a halfling that starts with a 16 or 18 Strength easily, fits right in with that idea.

    It's not that every halfling can be that strong, but a PC halfling? Certainly.

    Honestly, for years now, I've been thinking of just scrapping the idea of race/species and just letting it be a "pick X number of features, tell me what your race is".

    Like, have three columns you get a racial feature from each of the columns so you can mix and match whatever you want.

  5. - Top - End - #185
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Better alternative than stat-less races

    Quote Originally Posted by SpawnOfMorbo View Post
    Seems like a lot of effort to say "play my way or get out".


    I think adventurers, heroes and villains, are assumed by the base game to be rare among most settings so having a player with a halfling that starts with a 16 or 18 Strength easily, fits right in with that idea.

    It's not that every halfling can be that strong, but a PC halfling? Certainly.

    Honestly, for years now, I've been thinking of just scrapping the idea of race/species and just letting it be a "pick X number of features, tell me what your race is".

    Like, have three columns you get a racial feature from each of the columns so you can mix and match whatever you want.
    Sure. If you and your group are happy with cardboard settings. Whatever floats your boat. But as for me and mine, no thanks.

    I don't really care about racial modifiers. I'm slightly in their favor, but only slightly. I don't think they're as important on either side as people make them out to be, and I think they add a small amount of flavor. So yeah. Not worth redoing.

    That said, I am very strongly on favor of racial restrictions (restricting the set of playable races) and strong racial features and archetyping. The set of races and how they're part of the setting is a huge chunk of world building. Which is very firmly in the DM's, not the player's, hands. So I'm even more opposed to build a bear races than I am even build a bear classes, which I dislike quite a bit.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

  6. - Top - End - #186
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Belgium
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Better alternative than stat-less races

    Quote Originally Posted by Witty Username View Post
    If worse or as good as human is all we get anyway, fixed ASIs just pigeonhole races into particular classes.
    quite true, but *point to post 1* that doesn't have to be the case. That's a game design choice.

    And likewise, as we've seen with Tasha (where suddenly the free-armor-proficiency dwarves have better features for wizard then yet-another-cantrip - high elves) this isn't an ability score problem - it's an ability problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Witty Username View Post
    An exceptionally strong Goliath has 20 strength.
    An exceptionally strong Elf has 20 strength.
    Neither of which are prohibited by the rules, even without taking into account floating ASIs.
    And I don't disagree with you on that. But I'm talking about Tasha. To quote

    if you're a dwarf, your Constitution increases by 2, because dwarf heroes in D&D are often exceptionally tough

    Exceptionally tough... compared to whom? if Dwarf commoners get +2 Con, these dwarf hero's would not be exceptionally though - they would be normal. While a dwarf that took +2 Dex instead would be both an exceptionally dexterious dwarf, and weak (as they lack the +2 CON that dwarf commoners have)

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    No, both of these are bad.
    I know, and yet
    • You previously lauded the fact that golaiths get an ability that increases their carrying capacity.
    • You're against elves having the get +2 DEX - even if pointed out that this would have different game mechanical effects then the current rules.

    That does not make sense to me. Carrying capacity is ALSO a number you know. Why do think one is bad and the other isn't?

    Quote Originally Posted by JackPhoenix View Post
    Repeat after me: Not optimized is NOT the same thing as not viable.
    Quite true. But that's not a standard. Not always.

    When the rest of the people on the table blame you for the TPK, as you're playing a int 15 wizard, they're not saying not saying the character isn't viable - they are saying they feel the character isn't pulling it's weight.

    (and mind you - I'm someone who does maths for a hobby: I'm no saying they are neccecairy right. Psychology and maths are not the same thing)


    ---------------------------

    ... Oh, and some food for thought : who is the guy in your party that has the best chance to (nonmagically) seduce the princes?

    Spoiler
    Show
    the orc warlock of course*


    * if he's the only charisma based character of the party
    Yes, tabaxi grappler. It's a thing

    RFC1925: With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea.
    Alucard (TFS): I do things. I take very enthusiastic walks through the woods
    Math Rule of thumb: 1/X chance : There's about a 2/3 of it happening at least once in X tries
    Actually, "(e-1)/e for a limit to infinitiy", but, it's a good rule of thumb

  7. - Top - End - #187
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Tuscany, Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Better alternative than stat-less races

    Quote Originally Posted by qube View Post
    I know, and yet
    • You previously lauded the fact that golaiths get an ability that increases their carrying capacity.
    • You're against elves having the get +2 DEX - even if pointed out that this would have different game mechanical effects then the current rules.

    That does not make sense to me. Carrying capacity is ALSO a number you know. Why do think one is bad and the other isn't?
    Maybe because the latter makes the character unequivocally better at insert class than others, via a gap than can always be closed with enough training (completely invalidating the idea of the elves in the top curve being more dexterous than other races), assuming another race spends an extra ASI that the elf can instead invest in anything else, turning that supposedly thematic Dex gap into something else entirely with no relation to the races in question.
    Last edited by Captain Cap; 2023-02-05 at 03:20 AM.

  8. - Top - End - #188
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    ElfWarriorGuy

    Join Date
    May 2015

    Default Re: Better alternative than stat-less races

    Quote Originally Posted by strangebloke View Post
    LOL. You are currently arguing that you NEED the system to FORCE your orc to deal LESS DAMAGE and be LESS RESILIENT for the sake of FLAVOR.

    How does that work out? Someone help me here.
    If I'm creating a Half Orc Necro and intentionally don't make him as good at casting as I could, then as I understand/perceive/play that character, then he didn't put his all in that, there were choices when he went for something else. Then while he could tell others he did his best to be the greatest necro he could, he'd feel that's not true, he could've been a better Necro had he put himself to it, its not the same character.

    Quote Originally Posted by JNAProductions View Post
    Optimization and roleplaying are not opposites.

    You can have a useless PC played with all the personality of a carrot; and you can have a powered to the nines PC who’s the most memorable character due to their personality and actions.
    And that's exactly why not having a +2 in your main stat is unimportant at the end of the day.

    Btw, I mostly agree with your second sentence, optimization and good character do not necessarily go hand in hand, but I'd say the process of optimization can often help with the conceptualization of the character

    Spoiler: Example
    Show
    I'm gonna be a shuriken throwing ninja that's secretly a noble, how could I go about this?

    I'm gonna have to somehow eventually get magic weaponry, I could go Artificer or Art2/Fighter... Batman? Maybe Shadow Monk/Artificer, BATMAN!

    Or maybe go for Kensei's magic weaponry instead of having gadgets? Maybe even cause he rejected gadgets? Or look for something else?

    Well, now I'm making important decisions about my character that help refine the original idea.


    Quote Originally Posted by Anymage View Post
    If we assume that half orcs are larger and have heartier builds than other races, I think it's fair to look askance at the half orc wizard who decides that strength is a safe dump stat. Ditto with the gnome fighter who thinks that it's safe to dump intelligence, or the elven paladin who decides to go heavy armor and dump dexterity. That does feel like just digging for the most useful racials. Forcing any of the above to sacrifice prime stat as opposed to "highest stat after the important ones" (keeping in mind that most very few characters leverage more than two or three stats) is a much bigger ask and makes them much less likely to be seen.

    Spitballing an idea that just hit me while I was writing this, I wonder how bad an optional rule giving certain races stat minimums might be. The low end and implied medium are kept, while the top end doesn't feel as limited to only the right races.
    The thing is, I completely reject the notion that a character is anything less than capable because they don't have a +2 in their main stat*. Of course my experience playing is very limited compared to the totality of the playerbase, but with some 15-20 different DMs almost all of them adjust the encounters after the first couple adventures to be challenging to the party whatever the power of the party is, if they find the party is bodying everything in its path in the first couple adventures, they will start crankin up the difficulty, and if the party is getting bodied regularly, either the DM is going for that for some reason, or they will tone down encounters a bit.

    You could say that they'll be weaker than the other members of the party, and that may very well be the case, but I think that depends much more on the respective builds, is the pre Tasha Half Orc Gloomstalker "weaker" than the Lightfoot Halfling Thief whose racials are tailor made for the class? Well, that will depend on the situation, in most combats I'd expect the Gloomstalker to deliver more damage.

    *Maybe in a niche build where the character has a lot of requirements and none align with their racials, like a point buy Rock Gnome Paladin/Ranger (13/15/11+1/8+2/13/13), this would likely be less powerful than the average party members, but its mostly because of the rest of the build, a Half-Elf looks better but it has likely the best statline for something like this (13/15+1/12/8/13+1/12+2), the +1 in Wis could go someplace else for a half feat later on like Res(Con) or something.

    Quote Originally Posted by JackPhoenix View Post
    20 at any level puts you above the curve, it's NEVER expected by the system, but it's not gamebreaking.
    What does "expected by the system" even mean? That the character can go thru the daily combat budget 95% of the time?
    Last edited by Rukelnikov; 2023-02-05 at 06:22 AM.

  9. - Top - End - #189
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Tuscany, Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Better alternative than stat-less races

    Quote Originally Posted by Rukelnikov View Post
    If I'm creating a Half Orc Necro and intentionally don't make him as good at casting as I could, then as I understand/perceive/play that character, then he didn't put his all in that, there were choices when he went for something else.
    There doesn't need to be a correspondence between player and character's choices: I can choose my character to be naturally blonde, 2 meters tall etc. things that would be outside the realm of choices of the character itself. Does my half orc start with a 14 in Str instead of 16? Perhaps he was born scrawnier than most. Does he have 10 in Int instead of 14? He may not be as gifted as others, needing to spend much more time and effort to get to the same level, even if he puts his all in it.

  10. - Top - End - #190
    Orc in the Playground
     
    RangerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Saint John, NB
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Better alternative than stat-less races

    Quote Originally Posted by qube View Post

    And I don't disagree with you on that. But I'm talking about Tasha. To quote

    if you're a dwarf, your Constitution increases by 2, because dwarf heroes in D&D are often exceptionally tough

    Exceptionally tough... compared to whom? if Dwarf commoners get +2 Con, these dwarf hero's would not be exceptionally though - they would be normal. While a dwarf that took +2 Dex instead would be both an exceptionally dexterious dwarf, and weak (as they lack the +2 CON that dwarf commoners have)
    Key word in the quote is "often". But even still, if you're a hill dwarf you have more HP than non-dwarves with the same con. Dwarf commoners would have 5hp, even a dwarf wizard with a 10 con is tougher than that.

    But again, the key word is "often", usually dwarf heroes are exceptionally tough... But they don't need to be.

  11. - Top - End - #191
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Better alternative than stat-less races

    Quote Originally Posted by qube View Post
    I know, and yet
    • You previously lauded the fact that golaiths get an ability that increases their carrying capacity.
    • You're against elves having the get +2 DEX - even if pointed out that this would have different game mechanical effects then the current rules.

    That does not make sense to me. Carrying capacity is ALSO a number you know. Why do think one is bad and the other isn't?
    I didn't "laud" Goliath adventurers having a carrying capacity boost, I just said I was fine with it. If they didn't I wouldn't care either. It's an aspect of the game that ends up being barely consequential at most tables; if you found a similarly inconsequential way to represent elven grace I would evaluate that in similar fashion, but ability scores and modifiers ain't it as Captain Cap stated.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  12. - Top - End - #192
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    GreenSorcererElf

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Better alternative than stat-less races

    It seems to me that sci fi ttrpgs lean far more heavily into race/ species variety and distinction. Starfinder has such a vast catalog and the differences go so much further than ability scores. Like, some races don't even have limbs or digits. My favorite is the Spathinae. The system does a good job of somehow not going overboard on racial traits, but still backing the narrative with a half dozen characteristics on top of stats.

    Another sci fi game, shadowrun, doesn't have an expensive roster of options. In fact, it's more quintessential fantasy than D&D with humans, elves, dwarves, orks, trolls as the main core options. The metatypes, as they're called, open and restrict options. But I bring it up because shadowrun has one of the coolest concepts in the priority system. You have 5 categories during character creation. You have 5 priorities and no repeats. Your metatype will affect your PC more or less depending on what priority you give it. I.e. your dwarfiest dwarf PC will have a A or B metatype priority. For the player that doesn't care or wants to go a different route, they can skip the dwarf perks putting metatype priority low or last.

  13. - Top - End - #193
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Apr 2012

    Default Re: Better alternative than stat-less races

    Ability Scores are one of the least unique things about the various species. I think them being made part of Background like the One D&D test has it currently makes the most sense.

    The abilities they have are a much better way to make them separate without pidgin-holing them in certain classes and punishing those who want to do something different.
    Last edited by Envyus; 2023-02-05 at 05:06 PM.

  14. - Top - End - #194
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    BlueWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Better alternative than stat-less races

    Quote Originally Posted by qube View Post
    I know, and yet
    • You previously lauded the fact that golaiths get an ability that increases their carrying capacity.
    • You're against elves having the get +2 DEX - even if pointed out that this would have different game mechanical effects then the current rules.

    That does not make sense to me. Carrying capacity is ALSO a number you know. Why do think one is bad and the other isn't?
    I think that this may be better pointed at me. I would actually fit that more as I like powerful build and wouldn't mind seeing more of it, but am pretty fine with +2 strength not being a race thing.
    For me it mostly comes to interest.
    Ability scores carry some, but not alot of, flavor, and class specific mechanical implications. This means they need to be contained to conform to bounded accuracy. This tends to make ASIs not particularly interesting, and has the tendency of making them unnecessarily restrictive.

    Powerful Build is the portion of strength to have the least impact on archetype, but that allows it to be much greater scope (what would your opinion of a race with +15 strength be?). As mentioned it is an area of the game that most hand wave, but as one whose table does not, it has made for some cool moments, (being able to dead lift ~1,200 pounds can dramatically effect approaches to problems).
    I generally prefer features to form to the dramatic and alien. Does anyone actually remember that time they didn't miss an attack roll by 1? How about that time you cleared a room of goblins with your dragonborn fire breath?

    At least for me, the thing that makes a dragonborn interesting is the dragonbreath, the str and cha bonuses are just fiddling numbers. Now if this was 3.5 where having a +8 strength bonus was just on the table, sure. But 5e isn't equipped to handle that. Given that, I would prefer that races prioritize the features that make them feel unusual, alien, and that change outlooks on problems fundamentally rather than the fiddly numbers.

    Kobolds losing sunlight sensitivity and pack tactics, would be an example of a loss of identity for me (culture vs nature is a thing, I personally saw pack tactics as nature in the same way it is for wolves but that is a separate argument), Kobolds loosing the strength penalty barely registester as a change to that identity.
    My sig is something witty.

    78% of DM's started their first campaign in a tavern. If you're one of the 22% that didn't, copy and paste this into your signature.

  15. - Top - End - #195
    Troll in the Playground
     
    strangebloke's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2012

    Default Re: Better alternative than stat-less races

    Quote Originally Posted by Rukelnikov View Post
    If I'm creating a Half Orc Necro and intentionally don't make him as good at casting as I could, then as I understand/perceive/play that character, then he didn't put his all in that, there were choices when he went for something else. Then while he could tell others he did his best to be the greatest necro he could, he'd feel that's not true, he could've been a better Necro had he put himself to it, its not the same character.
    First of all, I wasn't talking about your example, I was talking about a monk. A pre-tasha's half orc monk was terrible. 2 AC lower, 25% lower damage. Even with the other racial benefits you just end up being a clutzy weakling.

    And that sucks, it makes little sense. Because while Half-orcs are (maybe) supposed to be dumber than humans, it seems really weird to argue that they're clumsier. Because that's the issue, isn't it? "Lack of an ASI" makes you bad at that ability forever. It's impossible to overcome, and its not even an interesting inhibition. It's just mathematically bad.

    Meanwhile, you're acting as though the opportunity to play a nonstandard race while still having good stats is somehow ruining your roleplay. lol.
    Quote Originally Posted by Envyus View Post
    Ability Scores are one of the least unique things about the various species. I think them being made part of Background like the One D&D test has it currently makes the most sense.

    The abilities they have are a much better way to make them separate without pidgin-holing them in certain classes and punishing those who want to do something different.
    Yeah, precisely. Goliaths having +2 STR makes them feel strong-ish, but not really more strong than a human or half elf or mountain dwarf or Githzerai. Mathematically, they're all basically the same from that POV, while all races that can get a bonus to STR are mathematically WAY stronger than any race that gets no bonus.

    But what makes goliaths feel strong, actually, is that they have resistance to cold, stone's endurance, and powerful build. In terms of raw math these features are not all that signficant compared to +2 STR, but from a fluff perspective they're way more unique and compelling.

    Less pigeon holing good. More distinct fluff good.

    Absolute win.
    Make Martials Cool Again.

  16. - Top - End - #196
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    LudicSavant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles

    Default Re: Better alternative than stat-less races

    Quote Originally Posted by qube View Post
    I know, and yet
    • You previously lauded the fact that golaiths get an ability that increases their carrying capacity.
    • You're against elves having the get +2 DEX - even if pointed out that this would have different game mechanical effects then the current rules.

    That does not make sense to me. Carrying capacity is ALSO a number you know. Why do think one is bad and the other isn't?
    This question was directed at Psyren, but as I am also a person who thinks Powerful Build is fine but 5e-style +2 Str mod isn't (either for race or gender), here's why I think that:

    Powerful build grants a new feature, but +2 Str changes the cost of an existing feature.

    This is a subtle but very important difference from a game design perspective. With Powerful Build, the number of possible flavors actually increases. Now you can be someone who is not merely a person with 20 Str, but *also* Powerful Build.

    With +2 Str, on the other hand, the actual amount of feature concepts does not increase -- you're still playing a PC with 8-20 Strength. What happens instead is that if you create 2 characters with 20 Str, they're both equally strong, but the one who didn't play into their race stereotype lost an extra feat in the deal and is underpowered relative to those who *did* play into the stereotype. This is because racial modifiers don't balance out -- for any given 5e class, your primary stat is worth more than your secondary stat is worth more than your tertiary, quaternary, quinary, and senary stats. So if one character gets +2 to primary and -2 to quaternary, that character gets a net positive, while the character who gets +2 to quaternary and -2 to primary gets a net negative. It's objectively inferior. This is especially evident with point buy -- if you get a +2 to a lower priority stat, it'll be worth 2 point buy points. Whereas if you get a +2 to your primary stat, it's worth more than 2 point buy, and might even be worth an ASI besides.

    So if we make two characters with the concept "championship level knight" with largely identical capabilities (like Brienne and Jaime) but some designer decides it's a great idea to make Brienne get a Str penalty because she's a girl, then instead of a party with Brienne and Jaime (who are equally capable) you get a party with Jaime and some less capable girl who is not as qualified to be in the party as he is, because she's short a feat.

    And why should Brienne be a more expensive character to build than Jaime? Because Brienne is a more unusual example of her gender? Why pay a penalty for unusualness? Usually in game design we cost features by their effectiveness, not their oddness. Why should races or genders be the exception?

    Being "more unusual" shouldn't mean being worse.

    The kind of character concepts that fixed 5e-style racial modifiers discourage shouldn't be discouraged.
    Last edited by LudicSavant; 2023-02-06 at 12:59 AM.

  17. - Top - End - #197
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Better alternative than stat-less races

    Quote Originally Posted by LudicSavant View Post

    And why should Brienne be a more expensive character to build than Jaime? Because Brienne is a more unusual example of her gender? Why pay a penalty for unusualness? Usually in game design we cost features by their effectiveness, not their oddness. Why should races or genders be the exception?

    Being "more unusual" shouldn't mean being worse.
    But, as someone pointed out earlier, the mountain is a more unusual example of his gender (and species) in terms of strength, so he does cost more.

    The DnD stats system is based around paying more for having extremely good stats.

    Just like in the real world - a woman can run the 100 meters in 11 seconds is in the 100m final at the olympics, a man who runs 110m in 11 seconds is just a fast guy. We celebrate the woman who runs the sub 11 second 100m because she is a more unusual example of her gender than the man who can run the sub 11s 110m. Indeed, she costs (and makes) a lot more than a man of equal speed to sponsor too.
    Last edited by Liquor Box; 2023-02-06 at 04:27 AM.

  18. - Top - End - #198
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Tuscany, Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Better alternative than stat-less races

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    But, as someone pointed out earlier, the mountain is a more unusual example of his gender (and species) in terms of strength, so he does cost more.
    He doesn't cost more because he's unusual, but because he's mechanically stronger.
    Last edited by Captain Cap; 2023-02-06 at 04:56 AM.

  19. - Top - End - #199
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Seoul

    Default Re: Better alternative than stat-less races

    Now if you want to get really evil do:
    1. First choose a race.
    2. Roll stats IN ORDER.

    That'll get you some characters of the sort you don't see very often.

    If you want character creation to be a bit more balanced instead of rolling for stats get 18 numerical playing cards and deal out three to each stat (you can tweak the overall power of each character by doing things like removing 1's and adding more higher number cards).

    At the end of the day it's pretty goofy to not have half-orcs be weaker than halflings, but it's ALSO goofy that just about EVERY SINGLE half-orc PC has peak strength, etc. etc. There should be a bit of a bell curve with half-orcs averaging higher than halflings, but instead you get just about every half-orc being a vast mountain of muscle even by half-orc standards etc. etc.

  20. - Top - End - #200
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    LudicSavant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles

    Default Re: Better alternative than stat-less races

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    But, as someone pointed out earlier, the mountain is a more unusual example of his gender (and species) in terms of strength, so he does cost more.
    The reason Gregor should cost more is because he's stronger, not because he's more unusual.

    Brienne and Jaime are of equal effectiveness, so should cost the same. Their "unusualness for their gender" should not be a relevant variable to how much their features cost.

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Cap View Post
    He doesn't cost more because he's unusual, but because he's mechanically stronger.
    Exactly.
    Last edited by LudicSavant; 2023-02-06 at 06:26 AM.

  21. - Top - End - #201
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Better alternative than stat-less races

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Cap View Post
    He doesn't cost more because he's unusual, but because he's mechanically stronger.
    Those are the same things - he is a more extreme example of strength

    Quote Originally Posted by LudicSavant View Post
    Brienne and Jaime are of equal effectiveness, so should cost the same. Their "unusualness for their gender" should not be a relevant variable to how much their features cost.
    When you use the word 'should', you are just stating your opinion, not giving a reason for it.

    What are your reasons for thinking possibly the strongest woman in the world shouldn't cost as much as possibly the strongest man? Why should absolute strength matter more than how strong they are relative to their species (or gender)?
    Last edited by Liquor Box; 2023-02-06 at 06:47 AM.

  22. - Top - End - #202
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Aimeryan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2016

    Default Re: Better alternative than stat-less races

    Quote Originally Posted by strangebloke View Post
    First of all, I wasn't talking about your example, I was talking about a monk. A pre-tasha's half orc monk was terrible. 2 AC lower, 25% lower damage. Even with the other racial benefits you just end up being a clutzy weakling.

    And that sucks, it makes little sense. Because while Half-orcs are (maybe) supposed to be dumber than humans, it seems really weird to argue that they're clumsier. Because that's the issue, isn't it? "Lack of an ASI" makes you bad at that ability forever. It's impossible to overcome, and its not even an interesting inhibition. It's just mathematically bad.

    Meanwhile, you're acting as though the opportunity to play a nonstandard race while still having good stats is somehow ruining your roleplay. lol.


    Yeah, precisely. Goliaths having +2 STR makes them feel strong-ish, but not really more strong than a human or half elf or mountain dwarf or Githzerai. Mathematically, they're all basically the same from that POV, while all races that can get a bonus to STR are mathematically WAY stronger than any race that gets no bonus.

    But what makes goliaths feel strong, actually, is that they have resistance to cold, stone's endurance, and powerful build. In terms of raw math these features are not all that signficant compared to +2 STR, but from a fluff perspective they're way more unique and compelling.

    Less pigeon holing good. More distinct fluff good.

    Absolute win.
    This really comes down to two opposing desires:
    1) Play any race/species, any class, no difference.
    2) Synergistic race/species and class combinations, with good choices and bad choices.

    Neither is right or wrong objectively. 5e seems to be leaning towards the former more and more; is this the goal for WotC? Maybe, or maybe they are just bad at accomplishing what the goal is. If this is the goal, then their current approach is not 'broken' - although they could still improve by taking away any unique features that are race/species specific and fully realise that goal.

    If this is not their goal, then threads like this may help them (unlikely, but who knows?).

    On a side note, this is not a roleplay vs non-roleplay argument. Both paths encourage roleplay in different directions. The first encourages a 'nothing is holding you back' roleplay and if you want to be a Halfling Barbarian pushing back the strongest Half-Orc Barbarian in a contest of strength, then why not? The second encourages a 'working with your strengths and covering your weaknesses' roleplay, where you don't try to win a contest of strength as a Halfing Barbarian against the strongest Half-Orc Barbarian, instead you sneak to the side and stab them. Both paths have their own roleplay - neither is superior objectively. The only issue is that you kind of can't have both - either that Halfling can be as strong as the strongest Half-Orc, or they can't. Either they are forced to work with what they have, or they aren't.

  23. - Top - End - #203
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Tuscany, Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Better alternative than stat-less races

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    Those are the same things
    They're not, because an unusually weak character does not cost more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    When you use the word 'should', you are just stating your opinion, not giving a reason for it.

    What are your reasons for thinking possibly the strongest woman in the world shouldn't cost as much as possibly the strongest man? Why should absolute strength matter more than how strong they are relative to their species (or gender)?
    She already gave you a reason, and it's gameplay: the strongest woman in the world shouldn't cost as much as the strongest man because she would have lower in-game benefits than the latter.

    Attributes points are not a thing in the real world, the possibility of spending them how you want has no basis in reality or fiction, they are just a game currency that you spend to obtain in-game effects.

  24. - Top - End - #204
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Better alternative than stat-less races

    Quote Originally Posted by Aimeryan View Post
    This really comes down to two opposing desires:
    1) Play any race/species, any class, no difference.
    2) Synergistic race/species and class combinations, with good choices and bad choices.

    Neither is right or wrong objectively. 5e seems to be leaning towards the former more and more; is this the goal for WotC? Maybe, or maybe they are just bad at accomplishing what the goal is. If this is the goal, then their current approach is not 'broken' - although they could still improve by taking away any unique features that are race/species specific and fully realise that goal.

    If this is not their goal, then threads like this may help them (unlikely, but who knows?).

    On a side note, this is not a roleplay vs non-roleplay argument. Both paths encourage roleplay in different directions. The first encourages a 'nothing is holding you back' roleplay and if you want to be a Halfling Barbarian pushing back the strongest Half-Orc Barbarian in a contest of strength, then why not? The second encourages a 'working with your strengths and covering your weaknesses' roleplay, where you don't try to win a contest of strength as a Halfing Barbarian against the strongest Half-Orc Barbarian, instead you sneak to the side and stab them. Both paths have their own roleplay - neither is superior objectively. The only issue is that you kind of can't have both - either that Halfling can be as strong as the strongest Half-Orc, or they can't. Either they are forced to work with what they have, or they aren't.
    Good post, I agree. But still fun to talk about.

  25. - Top - End - #205
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Tuscany, Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Better alternative than stat-less races

    Quote Originally Posted by Aimeryan View Post
    This really comes down to two opposing desires:
    1) Play any race/species, any class, no difference.
    2) Synergistic race/species and class combinations, with good choices and bad choices.
    There's another camp: make race and class combinations different without unequivocally good/bad choices.
    Last edited by Captain Cap; 2023-02-06 at 07:24 AM.

  26. - Top - End - #206
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Aimeryan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2016

    Default Re: Better alternative than stat-less races

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Cap View Post
    There's another camp: make race and class combinations different without unequivocally good/bad choices.
    I would still put this as part of the second; the choice will be good or bad depending on your goal for the build. Consider a race that makes melee stronger, and pair this with say the Fighter. Is this a good race and class combination? That depends - do you want to focus on melee or ranged? If the latter, then its bad. If the former, then its good.

    Ideally, this should be the case for all race/species and class combinations - all work in some way, but HOW they work makes them good or bad for different builds. The problem here is that this would also require classes can be played in all ways, with feats and subclasses leaning in different directions. Certainly this is the case to some extent, but sometimes there is only say one path for the class that accomplishes this and it just isn't good - which makes the overall race/species and class combination bad even if it synergises.

  27. - Top - End - #207
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Better alternative than stat-less races

    Quote Originally Posted by Aimeryan View Post
    This really comes down to two opposing desires:
    1) Play any race/species, any class, no difference.
    2) Synergistic race/species and class combinations, with good choices and bad choices.
    Nobody is advocating for "no difference." Of course different species playing the same class should have differences. And I'd argue that nobody wants there to be "bad choices" either. Some choices being better or worse than others, comparatively, is reasonable - but not being clearly or objectively "bad," there's still a baseline level of effectiveness that every species should be able to hit.

    For example, picking Eladrin for your Warlock arguably gives it more interesting tactical options than picking Orc. But the Orc (a) isn't a bad choice for Warlock, and (b) gets a couple of interesting tactics of its own, especially for a Hexblade or Celestial.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  28. - Top - End - #208
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Aimeryan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2016

    Default Re: Better alternative than stat-less races

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    Nobody is advocating for "no difference." Of course different species playing the same class should have differences. And I'd argue that nobody wants there to be "bad choices" either. Some choices being better or worse than others, comparatively, is reasonable - but not being clearly or objectively "bad," there's still a baseline level of effectiveness that every species should be able to hit.

    For example, picking Eladrin for your Warlock arguably gives it more interesting tactical options than picking Orc. But the Orc (a) isn't a bad choice for Warlock, and (b) gets a couple of interesting tactics of its own, especially for a Hexblade or Celestial.
    Choices that are poorer than other choices are bad choices, relatively. The absolute values do not matter, this is still the case. As mentioned up above, these choices may be entirely build dependent, with a race/species and class combination being good for one type of build and bad for another type of build. I think many players want choices to matter, and many players who just want to build whatever combination they want without being penalised. This is why there are two divisions.

    The worst case scenario in my opinion is to still have differences that make certain races/species and class non-optimal, but for these differences to be minor - it doesn't really work for either camp. Its not a compromise, its the worst of both. People are still penalised, while the choice feels very unsatisfying and does not encourage figuring out how to best work with the result. Its an irritant rather than a useful feature.

  29. - Top - End - #209
    Troll in the Playground
     
    strangebloke's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2012

    Default Re: Better alternative than stat-less races

    In general, I would say that the goal should be to make every race as mechanically interesting as possible. Whether something is 'interesting' or not is subjective, but in general I would say that a race that is good for several classes while also being very different from other races that are good for those classes should be the goal.

    One of my favorite races is the tortle. Objectively, not remotely overpowered, but it allows you to play certain classes (druid, monk, cleric) in new ways, and people still bring it up now and again./

    The problem with fixed-stat modifiers is that they're both
    • very mechanically important.
    • very standardized and not particularly distinctive.


    So looking at the PHB races, dragonborn, half-orcs, mountain dwarves, humans, and half elves all could get bonuses to strength, which made all of them good as barbarians or strength fighters. They are all way better for such builds/classes than the alternatives. Dragonborn make WAY better barbarians than wood elves under the PHB rules, in spite of being much weaker overall.

    But all these "good barbarian races" are good for the same reason. They good because of the bonus to strength. for different reasons. A barbarian doesn't actually want the (non-strength) features that a half-orc or dragonborn has. Mechanically speaking, playing a half-orc doesn't feel very different from playing a half-elf that put its modifier into strength. Things like brutal critical and standing up at 1 hp and sleep immunity don't come up much overall.

    And that's bad. These races are very boring, and concepts that could be fun are much mechanically worse for no real reason. Something like a wood elf being so much worse than a half elf, while the half elf is just as good as a half orc, is pretty hard to justify on the basis of fluff, and the mechanical reasons for this are boring as heck.

    I'll also note that speaking for myself, I've seen a LOT of vhumans and half-elves at my table over the years. Those races having floating modifiers made them easy to slot into any build.

    The Tasha's solution here is simple: make every race have floating modifiers, so that race choice is guided by their non-ASI features, and then make those non-ASI features really strong and distinctive. And though I was skeptical at first...

    Look, compare the Fizban's dragonborn to the PHB dragonborn. Can you seriously tell me that you'd ever prefer the PHB dragonborn? And the Fizban's dragonborn isn't even OP, its just good and has interesting abilities.

    AND its more in keeping with the lore, since Dragonborn aren't supposed to all be big muscly half-orc lookalikes.
    Last edited by strangebloke; 2023-02-06 at 12:25 PM.
    Make Martials Cool Again.

  30. - Top - End - #210
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Better alternative than stat-less races

    Quote Originally Posted by Aimeryan View Post
    Choices that are poorer than other choices are bad choices, relatively. The absolute values do not matter, this is still the case.
    The absolute values do matter, and the fact that you think they don't is why we're unable to come to any kind of compromise on this. A big part of what we (those of us who want ability modifiers decoupled from species) want is a floor that is higher than a fixed ability score penalty and a ceiling that is below a fixed ability score bonus. Reattaching those, or their equivalents, to a given species to make it strictly better or strictly worse than all other options with that modifier as their key ability is the nonstarter here. As strangebloke mentioned, your key ability is "very mechanically important" (absolute value) in a way that something like increased carrying capacity or even counting as a size larger for specific calculations is not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aimeryan View Post
    As mentioned up above, these choices may be entirely build dependent, with a race/species and class combination being good for one type of build and bad for another type of build. I think many players want choices to matter, and many players who just want to build whatever combination they want without being penalised. This is why there are two divisions.
    No, this is still the same false dichotomy that you and others insist on perpetuating. My presence in the "Not wanting to be penalized by absolute values" camp does not mean I don't "want choices to matter." I can and do have both in a post-Tasha's/MPMM world. Just because choosing to play an Orc Warlock is not penalizing me mathematically over an Eladrin one anymore, does not mean the choice between the two doesn't have any impact. An even cursory read of the features they get proves that belief to be false.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •