|
10 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 10:23AM
#61
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2004
|
I want racial difference, but I don't want a racial straightjacket, if anyone has a good solution for that, please let the D&D team know.
Honestly I feel like what they are doing is a good compromise. Half-orcs are generally stronger than halflings, and if you want to be a strong fighter, you would tend that way. But the stat cap means that with some extra effort and investment, a halfling can be just as strong.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 10:26AM
#62
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2008
|
I didn't like that 4e made certain races just plain better when paired with certain classes than others.
I think the problem in 4e wasn't just stats, though. It was those AWFUL class/ race feats. Like the one that made Eladrin Tactical Warlords the only ones worth considering for a long time.
I think I could like with getting +1 less on my hit rolls if my other checks were stronger and if that's the ONLY disadvantage I had in combat compared to another race.
I'm a bit wary of certain weapons getting extra damage for certain races with NO investment. That screams "dwarves ONLY use axes and hammers" to me. Racial benefits should be something that doesn't compromise combat or combat flavour too much. Perhaps racial combat advantages should be linked to a specialisation.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 10:29AM
#63
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2005
|
You are absolutely incorrect.
No, I'm not. Even though I don't like to and am not into something doesn't mean that I can't recognize that others like it and are into it and that that's okay too.
The entire function of these boards at this moment is to discuss what we'd like to see and make suggestions as to why we'd like to see it.
Yes, but because one of the core principles of Next is to let as many people as possible play D&D their way, the way that we react to vald opinions and playstyles that differ from our own shouldn't be "You're playing bad wrong stupid!" but rather "How can we both get what we want?". So, I accept that some people like vancian casting and move onto the process of figuring out how we can have that and also have other forms of casting so that everybody can play their way.
Yet ultimately that's what you're asking for.
No, it is not. That you draw that conclusion just shows that you fundementally don't understand what it is that other people are actually asking form. It is not even hard to come up with racial trait blocks that are appropriately thematically evocative but that also avoid pigeon-holing and stereotyping. List a couple of races, and I'll make examples of them.
Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TMSpeaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 10:29AM
#64
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2008
|
I want racial difference, but I don't want a racial straightjacket, if anyone has a good solution for that, please let the D&D team know.
Honestly I feel like what they are doing is a good compromise. Half-orcs are generally stronger than halflings, and if you want to be a strong fighter, you would tend that way. But the stat cap means that with some extra effort and investment, a halfling can be just as strong.
I don't hate the current system. But as I said earlier in response to the "halfling blessed by Kord" storyline, I still think an epic level halfling blessed by the gods would be weaker than an epic level half-orc blessed by the gods.
What if half-orcs capped at 21 str and halflings capped at 20 str?
Mechanically it means once capped both races are the same, but it "in theory" shows that the strongest of half-orcs are stronger. In practice it means no half-orcs would go past 20 strength, though... But at least people would have the option?
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 10:30AM
#65
|
Date Joined:
Nov 16, 2009
|
Anyway, the days of halflings being particularly weak are gone.
Tell that to the idiotic weapon restrictions they get for small size.
Easy fix- houserule it out.
@OP houserule in your proposed maximums, penalties and whatnot.
I don't think its a bad idea, but I don't think it should be the standard as it adds complication- and a "simple core" is the goal.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 10:33AM
#66
|
Date Joined:
May 31, 2011
|
Would you like to read my whole post or would you rather just continue cherry-picking arguments from it that you disagree with?
What makes you think I didn't read your whole post? I simply responded to the parts that reflected a logic I disagree with and then expressed why I disagreed with it.
I want racial difference, but I don't want a racial straightjacket, if anyone has a good solution for that, please let the D&D team know.
And the suggestion that I'm making in no way places any sort of straightjacket. Anyone who really understands CharOp would know that a +1 or +2 to a stat is not going to radically, or even noticably, sway things. In terms of strength, we're talking about 1 or 2 damage in a game in which people will be doing 100's of points of damage by the later stages.
Frankly, I'm shocked that this is even a big issue to some. I was simply pointing out a poor bit of logic and now we have the Equality Police telling us that races can be different but they can't be different.
To all the people so opposed to the idea that there be slight variances in racial statistic maximums, personally I'm bothered that dwarves get immunity to poison. It infringes on my ability to roleplay a human who's naturally immune to poison...
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 10:38AM
#67
|
Date Joined:
Dec 24, 2007
|
I think the problem in 4e wasn't just stats, though. It was those AWFUL class/ race feats. Like the one that made Eladrin Tactical Warlords the only ones worth considering for a long time.
I think I could like with getting +1 less on my hit rolls if my other checks were stronger and if that's the ONLY disadvantage I had in combat compared to another race.
I'm a bit wary of certain weapons getting extra damage for certain races with NO investment. That screams "dwarves ONLY use axes and hammers" to me. Racial benefits should be something that doesn't compromise combat or combat flavour too much. Perhaps racial combat advantages should be linked to a specialisation.
Yeah, it was a little different in 4e for a couple of reasons. I mean, that problem has been there to varying degrees in any edition that gave a stat bonus or penalty. 4e just had some added stuff - like the feats you mention - that made it even worse. Missing a +1 in combat was a bigger deal, IMO, in 4e than any edition before. It wasn't a question of being optimized, it was a question of being effective. And that's a pretty big deal. We need to move away from that.
I totally agree that racial stuff should stay out of combat for the most part or maybe be a flavorful addition. I don't wanna feel like a tool cuz I want my Dwarf to use a shortsword, for example. Not taking an available Feat or Specialization is one thing. Not using a free feature is another. Variety should be encouraged. Race/Class combos of all types should be encouraged. I admit it's kinda cool to have a race be the 'best' at something but it just isn't worth the price. Race should be flavor and out of combat stuff more than anything else. Race should help decide how you play your character, not what class you choose.
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.Section Six Soldier Front Door of the House of Trolls If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 10:42AM
#68
|
Date Joined:
May 31, 2011
|
@OP houserule in your proposed maximums, penalties and whatnot.
This DM Fiat/house rule it all away stuff has gotten out of hand. Why would I pay for a set of rules if the designers felt, "Well, it doesn't really make sense but we don't want to make any rules that infringe on people being able to do whatever they want, so just houserule the logic in."
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 10:54AM
#69
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2008
|
A +1 or +2 to damage isn't a big deal.
A +1 or +2 to hit is a much bigger deal. That's 5-10% and it applies at all levels.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 11:03AM
#70
|
|
|
Personally I have a massive problem when you tell me that a 50lb halfling has the same strength as the 1400lb minotaur. I get it, if you gave them more appropriate strengths to their muscle mass the halfling would be a completely non-option for any class that that used strength. I'm ok with that, but in the name of people who for some reason don't kill halflings on sight they provide options.
I don't buy that every halfling is blessed by kord, and even if they were that assumes that no minotaur ever was.
I would love to see some more realistic stats, especially str/con. An arrow sticking 4 inches in a minotaur/bear/half-orc may not even be deep enough to hit an organ, it's coming out the halflings back.
I'll settle for having racial caps though.
|
|
|
