10,207
edits
Changes
→Ratings
::Just know that D&D has come a long way. It isn't WotC who decided that races are actually different. If you look way back, you'll find that some races had level caps on some classes, or couldn't play some classes at all! I find that interesting too, as it has implications for the world. Some races just didn't produce powerful casters, so what does their civilization do? Players can figure something out. They always do.--[[User:Quey|Quey]] ([[User talk:Quey|talk]]) 09:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
::: Going to use quote so I can address each thing.
:::{{Quote|If you're going to look at it from a pure character statistics standpoint of a player making a character, you simply choose the best race for the class, hands down.}}
::: Yes. People do this most of the time. 95% of fighters in general D&D either have a bonus to Constitution, Strength, or get an extra feat (or similar special ability). 95% of wizards do not have a penalty to Intelligence (since many people aren't familiar with the gray elf I won't say that they are played often, but you don't see people with penalties to their main scores). This variant fixes, that, allowing people to play whatever they want without feeling pressured to choose the "best" race. This allows people who are normally optimizers to roleplay what they want more. How is this a bad thing again?
:::{{Quote|If you're going for roleplaying, then it doesn't really matter if race and class don't mesh perfectly.}}
::: This would be true were D&D a game that focused on story rather than game mechanics. Instead, 90% of the PHB is geared towards combat and how different character options change the way you overcome challenges. Thus, "roleplayers" who decide to take crap options because they're "roleplaying" not only shoot themselves in the foot, but shaft themselves and their party. When the DM plans an encounter, he generally expects people to contribute to an encounter. If someone isn't contributing, there is a higher likelihood of A. people dying, which generally isn't good for the story, and B. for the player who's not contributing to feel as though they're worthless in the major parts that game mechanics focus on (combat and overcoming encounters), and C. for players who enjoy character optimization to be labeled as "munchkins" and "powergamers" who don't "really roleplay" and are just in it to "win the game". (See Stormwind Fallacy if you want more information on why this is a stupid line of thought.)
::: My point is, if you want to roleplay and want not to have to think about optimizing and power, then D&D probably is not the right system for you since it puts so much of its focus on combat and overcoming challenges. See Don't Rest Your Head, FATE, and Riddle of Steel for RPGs that better fit that game paradigm.
:::{{Quote|But I'm not exactly sure what the big problem is.}}
::: The big problem is that being worse mechanically than many other characters in the party can lead to bad feelings amongst players unless it is stated beforehand and understood that you won't contribute much in combat and that your build probably isn't very viable compared to that of other players and that the DM should adjust encounters accordingly. The problem is that people expect the designers to know everything and write everything perfectly, and that Toughness is just as viable as Shock Trooper, Robilar's Gambit, Combat Brute, Power Attack, and the like. But this obviously isn't the case, and then those people feel confused and angry when their character sucks because Bill took those better feats and is a dirty powergaming munchkin.
:::{{Quote|Are there a lot of people wanting to play a half-orc wizard (who, by the way, get only -2 Int) only to be discouraged by the 5% higher chance that enemies will make their save? I'd hardly call it a punishment, no, not at all. It's a tradeoff.}}
::: Orcs specifically? Maybe not. But what about centaur wizards, orcish wizards, aasimar wizards, drow wizards, goblin wizards, goliath wizards, and more? Not only do poor ability adjustments hurt people who want to play those as wizards, but also LA and racial HD are killers to character power most of the time, especially on casters. This variant allows you to play any of the above and be just as viable as that elvish who paraded his 20 Intelligence at level one in your face. See above why being worse because of a flavor choice is a bad thing.
::: Incidentally, your same argument could be made for why wizards should be inherently more powerful than fighters--after all, flavorfully, wizards can move mountains and light whole towns on fire. Why shouldn't they be more powerful than fighters? This actually says, "You should suck because of what you wanted to play" to the fighter, which is mean, cruel, and overall malicious. Why should the fighter suck just because he wanted to be a fighter? Why shouldn't the fighter get nice things? What do you have against the fighter that makes you want to screw them over so hard that they feel intensely small in the pants every time the wizard casts a spell to remind them of how worthless they are? See more [[User:Ghostwheel/On_Design_Philosophy_of_Classes|here]]. (No, seriously, read that link. It's got good stuff.)
:::{{Quote|But it's not like one blindly goes choosing a race and class combination and then get frustrated and calls the game unfair when the human barbarian does more damage than one's own halfling barbarian}}
::: "Oooh, playing a tiny halfling who foams at the mouth and bites his enemy's knees off would be so cool! That's an amazing image/concept, and I totally want to play that! ...Oh. What do you mean it's not very good? What do you mean, I'll suck far more and will help the group far less? But it's such a cool concept... Ugh. Should I sacrifice my ability to actually be awesome, or my concept? >_<"
::: This variant fixes that. It still makes halflings harder to hit and do ''slightly'' less damage, but doesn't screw them over like the core rules do. So yeah, having a concept that's invalidated by the rules sucks hard, and should not be advocated by anyone who thinks that players should have the freedom to choose what they play.
:::{{Quote|I can say I don't really have this problem. I would argue that every base class is viable in every base race.}}
::: What about other races that are playable straight out of the monster manual? Do tell me how viable a [[SRD:Centaur|centaur]] wizard is? That and it really depends on your definition of "viable"--no, I would say that a wizard who starts with an intelligence of 14 (16 base, -2 racial) is pretty damn weak. Will go more into this later.
:::{{Quote|That said, you must accept that not every Cleric is going to be the same, and there are many different ways to make them playable.}}
::: I never said that every cleric was the same, so please don't put words into my mouth. I will say, though, that 95% of clerics are not going to have a penalty to Wisdom, and will usually try to have a bonus feat, or a bonus to Wisdom, Constitution, Charisma, and/or Strength depending on the type of cleric. This makes it so you can play ANY of the races on the article page without shooting yourself in the foot.
:::{{Quote|I am currently playing a monk who (gasp!) didn't take Stunning Fist as a bonus feat.}}
::: Ummm... dude. Sorry to tell you, but stunning fist kinda sucks. Its DC is terrible with the MAD that monks suffer from, it needs to be declared before making an attack, and it requires two successful rolls that are slanted against the monk (attack roll, slanted against due to MAD and medium BAB, DC, slanted against due to MAD). So that's cool. That said, there ''is'' a reason why the monk is put in the [[Dungeons_and_Dragons_Wiki:Article_Balance#Low_Balance|Low]] power range along with the CW Samurai and [[SRD:Soulknife|Soulknife]]. If you're playing a Low power game, then playing D&D out of the book probably doesn't hurt you much anyway, since encounters will rarely ever be actually challenging to characters of higher balance ranges, assuming you don't die every session. That said, for parties that actually face challenging encounters, building badly can result in a TPK when everyone is expected to pull their weight. Also see the blog I linked to before on why inherently having power is better for non-optimizers and newbies than having options be where power comes from. (Seriously, read it.)
:::{{Quote|My friend made a rogue who dumped Dex.}}
::: Is he str-based? Then he's not actually shooting himself in the foot, as he went with a stat that not only adds to his attack rolls, but also to his damage. Even in Moderate-power games, str-based rogues are very viable. So not really seeing how this is pertinent, unless you're trying to throw a red herring my way. Are you? :-/
:::{{Quote|And guess what? It worked out great. And not only are these two characters not only great for roleplaying, they actually performing on par with everyone else, perhaps better than some!}}
::: See Low-balance games. Encounters aren't dangerous compared to what [[User:Ghostwheel/Grimoire|high-level balance characters would normally face]]. (And remember the chart assumes that one monster with those stats is going to be present for every PC in the party. ''This'' is what High-level PCs can take on, and still win against without too many problems.)
:::{{Quote|That's saying a lot, because we have a couple of those min/maxin', Monkey Grippin', feats and flawsin' power gamers in our group.}}
::: ...You do know that Monkey Grip is one of the worst trap feats in the game, right? Here, let me explain ... with MATH!
::: Let's say you monkey grip a greatsword. You go from 2d6 to 3d6 damage. This is an increase of 1d6 damage, or 3.5 on average (since (1+6)/2 is 3.5) for which you're taking a -2 penalty to attack.
::: Let's compare this to Power Attack with a similar two-handed weapon. You take a -2 to attack for +4 damage. So this is already higher. But more than that, you can decide not to take the penalty on the fly, allowing you to hit higher-AC opponents more, or take a bigger penalty, to do more damage to lower-AC enemies, and on top of that it works with any two-handed weapon, rather than just the oversized sword you're carrying. And that's with the best case scenario.
::: So... yeah, Monkey Grip sucks, man. It's a total trap feat which I'd rate Low at the highest, since there isn't a lower balance range.
:::{{Quote|Yeah, it isn't fair, but it's only not fair in that, unless you're REALLY unfamiliar game, you're suffering 10% loss at most.}}
::: Except it isn't "only 10%". For a wizard, it's also number of spells per day from bonus slots (and they need as many as they can get), number of spells at first level, and on damage spells and the like, it actually reduces the effective damage by around double that. Let me know if you disagree and I can show you the math on that.
:::{{Quote|And just to be clear, every PLAYER has EXACTLY the same starting point: a blank character sheet.}}
::: Except when it comes to concepts. See above for the player that has a TOTALLY COOL CONCEPT and is shot down because it doesn't work mechanically. This variant ''allows'' people with wacky concepts that are totally cool and unique not to feel small in the pants compared to the person who took the best possible race. Which I think you'll agree is a good thing.
:::{{Quote|The choices they make are their own, and they live with the consequences.}}
::: So... you feel it's fine to suck because you want to play a certain concept? That's harsh, man. Really.
:::{{Quote|The perceived loss of equality means so many more gains in flavor and mechanics.}}
::: Not in mechanics. Mechanically you get shafted. That's what racial penalties to prime stats mean. Flavor is variable. But what if you could play that kooky centaur wizard and not suck? This lets you do just that.
:::{{Quote|It doesn't make any sense to have gnomes that are, on average, just as strong as half-orcs.}}
::: In the world at large? I agree with you 100%. But PCs are exceptional individuals, and special. In fact, they are so special that most of the PHB is filled with classes and abilities that are specifically tailored to PCs that 99.9% of NPCs can't take or use.
:::{{Quote|Just know that D&D has come a long way. It isn't WotC who decided that races are actually different. If you look way back, you'll find that some races had level caps on some classes, or couldn't play some classes at all!}}
::: Not sure how this is pertinent... more red herrings? I'll eat em for breakfast. That said, that was dumb way back when, since it meant that even if you had an idea for this awesome orcish wizard who had grown up as a curiosity and a "pet" or was experimented on and learned wizardry, you were banned from that concept just because the rules told you that you couldn't play it. And IMO rules are there to empower a player, not crap on them.
:::{{Quote|Some races just didn't produce powerful casters, so what does their civilization do?}}
::: Get screwed over for the most part. That said, PCs are exceptional individuals, and sometimes become gods and do other crazy stuff. The rules should not exist to shaft and crap on the players. Is that what you're advocating? That the rules exist to make PCs feel small in the pants, powerless, unable to play what they want, and useless in general? Because if that's the case, then I think you have more than enough right to dislike this, as it does the opposite, empowering players to play whatever concept they want without feeling as though they're getting screwed over. Just want to make sure I understand right, do you think that PCs should be made impotent by the rules, rather than empowered? --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] ([[User talk:Ghostwheel|talk]]) 10:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
{{Rating |rater=Fluffykittens
