|
|
|
stranger
|
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Not everything has to be equal, so this is fine. There are work arounds for this (Spells, cantrips, items even.) Throw a torch, get the dancing lights necklace. Cast light on a weapon. So on and so forth.
Terrible for the way you play, not others.
Last edited by jrf773; 20/10/20 04:27 PM.
Is this thing on?
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Oct 2020
|
On multi-classing over the years: In AD&D, it was basically cheese, and they attempted to limit the insanity with weird rules on XP gain and arbitrary racial caps. In 3E/3.5 and pathfinder, it's fundamentally the way you build a character. Single-classed characters are a weird exception. In 5E, multiclassing is available (it's technically an optional rule) but they moved what were different class paths to be actually "subclass" options inside each class. There exist tailored versions of those like Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster which are mean to give some of the multiclass feel within a single class. You can multiclass, but it's generally a big trade-off in high-level power for a bit of versatility. It's fun that it's there, but in most cases sticking to a base class is the best option. A lot of people who prefer 3.5 or Pathfinder have that preference for exactly that reason. There's infinity possibilities, in a way that 5E doesn't really provide. Personally, I prefer the 5E approach, but I understand why people are attached to the 3.5E system. We won't talk about 4E here. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cleric of Innuendo
|
|
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I generally prefer open systems where your skills, abilities and play style determine your 'class'. Thus, the restriction of 1e and 2e weighed heavily on my creativity... man. 3e/3.5e and PF were a major step forward, with 5e an evolution of this. D&D is still built around a restrictive set of abilities and powers, but the more open multi-classing rules make it easier to design the character I am picturing in my head. We won't talk about 4E here. Or anywhere else. It is not right to mock the dead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2018
|
You guys are doing it wrong. You need to refer to it as “the edition which should not be named,” though it would be better to just pretend it never existed at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cleric of Innuendo
|
|
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
|
You guys are doing it wrong. You need to refer to it as “the edition which should not be named,” though it would be better to just pretend it never existed at all. ... what didn't exist?
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Lets do the math on Human vs Variant Human.
Human +1 to all stats. That's a total of 6 ability points. compared to most races total of +4. Given that if all I want on a stat is a 10 for no negatives all I have to do is pay 1 point, so that means I will have 2 10 point stats, 3 14 point stats and 1 16 point stat. No other race can equal that starting. BUT I lose 1-2 skills that other races have and no dark vision.
Human variant. I get a feat at level 1 and 2 stats. Make me level 4 and give me 2 point points and that is a feat +4 stats pretty much the same as other races who get +4 status and take a feat at 4.
Neither one is over powered compared to other races and neither one is underpowered. It all depends on how you play it and how you plan it.
Sure variant has its advantage at low levels, but so to others at low levels, once you get past 4 it starts evening out and no race is better than another. Human BASE with it's +6 total ability points has the best long term effect (By my playstyle, but not best for everyone)
Last edited by Kimo; 20/10/20 07:03 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Let's be honest here...the races need some kind of rebalancing. Humans are terrible; so are halflings for example. Why not add something extra to them even if it is not officially in the player's handbook such as halfling luck being a +1 to any roll and humans getting extra proficiency points. Obviously not everyone is going to powerplay but it is only fair. We must be playing different games! How are Humans and Halflings terrible? The latter have the Lucky trait which is the best racial trait in all of DnD-dom. Humans are as they should be: Flexible and pretty good at everything. Variant humans not only break with the philosophy about human being the all-rounders, they are also blatantly OVERPOWERED and pretty much becomes the best at everything (at least in the early levels). Humans and Halflings being some of the best races from a mechanical standpoint gets brushed aside a lot because their strengths are overshadowed by the flashier situational abilities of other races. I actually sort of hope that the coming Lineage rules coming with Tasha's would have been implemented here, but oh well. But, yes, D&D classes and races are not balanced against each other. D&D 5e lacks a central benchmark average around which to build templates, so everything is sort of eyeballed. I tried to do an analysis at one point to find a central point around which races were built but I failed to even get out of one race and its subraces. This isn't so much of a problem in 5e as it was in earlier games, because there's a lot of narrative mechanics in 5e that make it possible to work around the mechanical issues. Also D&D sort of encourages a party-build philosophy where you build you character accounting for and in response to what other characters have. For example, if your Cleric is a Trickery cleric or War cleric or Light cleric, then you might decide to take Cure Wounds on your Ranger or Bard because those types of clerics tend to be less heal-focused. If you have a Paladin, you might build with the idea of tight formation to take advantage of the Paladin's auras.
Last edited by Thrythlind; 20/10/20 07:41 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I like 4th edition more than 3.5 and Pathfinder, and I'm on the fence about 5e, since 5e is still getting new stuff.
I want Variant Human because for two reasons, the first is that my builds tend to be feat heavy, and thus need the extra one at the start. The second is that I don't like being forced to pick specific races in order to play a halfway competent version of a class. The design of D&D means that +1 to all stats is pretty lack lustre, since you typically only care about one or two. An 8 is mechanically identical to a 9.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cleric of Innuendo
|
|
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I prefer the second option for creating human characters, but the blanket +1 to stats has its place. Some classes benefit from high stats in several areas (Monks, for example), and it is also useful if you are planning to multi-class. Otherwise, yes, having focussed stat bonuses and a Feat and skill proficiency is better in my eyes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2019
|
I've said it before on here and will say it again, there is no reason to play Human if there is no Variant Human. One would know this if they've made a few characters. Regardless of what you want your character to be able to do: swing a sword, shoot a bow, cast a spell, there are multiple races that will do it better. And, to boot, those races will have other cool racial abilities to use in addition. Those extra +1s are mechanically meaningless within the context of the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I generally prefer open systems where your skills, abilities and play style determine your 'class'. Thus, the restriction of 1e and 2e weighed heavily on my creativity... man. 3e/3.5e and PF were a major step forward, with 5e an evolution of this. D&D is still built around a restrictive set of abilities and powers, but the more open multi-classing rules make it easier to design the character I am picturing in my head. We won't talk about 4E here. Or anywhere else. It is not right to mock the dead. Why? 5e seems to implement aspects of 4e compared to other editions. Truthfully, 5e seems like a nerfed version of 4e, but I only have BG3 to reference off of since I don't own 5e. Anyway, Half Drow is a nerfed version of Half High Elf, presuming they are suppose to get Drow darkvision which is 24, but they get 12 instead. Halflings seem to be weak, at least compared to 3.5. Halfling Features: Lightfoot: +2 Dex. +1 Cha 7.5 speed, no darkvision, +2 Stealth, Reroll ones once Strong Heart: +2 Dex +1 Con 7.5 speed, no Darkvision, +2 save vs poison & Poison Resistance, reroll ones once 3.5 small creatures used to gain advantages and have drawbacks, for example they were slower, carried less, and were restricted by wp sizes. But gained, bonus ac, attack, and hide. 4e small creatures couldn't use 2h wps and had to use versatile as a 2h with no bonus dmg. No bonuses just drawbacks. I'm going to guess 5e follows 4e and sticks to only negatives. So lets compare halfling to another race. High Elf: +2 Dex +1 Int. 9 speed, 12 Dark vision, +2 perception, +2 on save vs charmed, Immune to sleep, 4 wp. proficiencies, & a cantrip spell. Anyone see a difference? Out of 8 races one of the three with no dark vision & is slower, plus is reroll onces equal to bonus on save, immunity, 4 wp proficiencies an a once per turn cantrip? Or here lets say Reroll once is equal to 1.5 more speed 12 meters of darkvision +2 vs charmed an immune to sleep 4 wp proficiencies and a freebe at will spell... kinda sad
Last edited by fallenj; 22/10/20 10:44 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I've said it before on here and will say it again, there is no reason to play Human if there is no Variant Human. One would know this if they've made a few characters. Regardless of what you want your character to be able to do: swing a sword, shoot a bow, cast a spell, there are multiple races that will do it better. And, to boot, those races will have other cool racial abilities to use in addition. Those extra +1s are mechanically meaningless within the context of the game. I disagree. maybe on paper... before I played my Human Ranger, it looks like you are right. But in practice, 16str 16Dex 10con 12int 14wis 9cha.... works VERY well in this game... granted this stat spread wont be so nice once they actually add higher levels... but the Toughness feat provides as much Hp as +4 con, so you can always just subsidize it later when you start to fall behind in health
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I've said it before on here and will say it again, there is no reason to play Human if there is no Variant Human. One would know this if they've made a few characters. Regardless of what you want your character to be able to do: swing a sword, shoot a bow, cast a spell, there are multiple races that will do it better. And, to boot, those races will have other cool racial abilities to use in addition. Those extra +1s are mechanically meaningless within the context of the game. I disagree. maybe on paper... before I played my Human Ranger, it looks like you are right. But in practice, 16str 16Dex 10con 12int 14wis 9cha.... works VERY well in this game... granted this stat spread wont be so nice once they actually add higher levels... but the Toughness feat provides as much Hp as +4 con, so you can always just subsidize it later when you start to fall behind in health That build sounds awful to me - why would a ranger value INT higher than CON? Why would it even value INT at all? I also don't see why you'd want 16 STR and 16 DEX on the same character - there's just no point in investing so heavily into both stats. The only real point to using STR as an attack stat is if you intend to use medium/heavy armor (if you aren't using medium/heavy armor then DEX gives all the attack/damage bonuses that STR does on finesse weapons + a bunch of other stuff on top of it, so spending twice as many points to get pretty much the same outcome seems incredibly wasteful to me). I'd much rather just forget about STR and INT and focus on DEX and CON instead (or alternatively, drop DEX down to 14 and keep STR if you intend to use medium armor). I would say the biggest flaw with humans right now is that the lowest their stats can go is 9 instead of 8. On paper they look like they get a lot of stat bonuses, but in practice a lot of those bonuses are wasted because there's no point to having 9 in a stat instead of 8, but those stats are also still just not valuable enough to be worth spending points on (unless you have nothing else you actually care about to spend points on, but in those cases you may as well pick a different race to get extra bonuses like the +movement distance and darkvision from a half wood elf)..
Last edited by asdf11784; 22/10/20 12:18 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cleric of Innuendo
|
|
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
|
In 3e/3,5e/PF I used to value INT for the skill points. In 5e I usually invest in INT to boost those skills, especially Investigation.
STR is likewise useful to power your Athletics skill (a major skill for most rangers, at least the way my table plays). In BG3 it's useful for weight carrying, jumping and hurling barrels. I also sometimes p[lay Rangers with martial weapons rather than just using bows. My current BG3 dwarf Ranger, for example, uses a battleaxe.
No stat is a 'waste', it depends on your concept of the character and how you want to play them.
Last edited by Sadurian; 22/10/20 12:18 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Some people choose to make characters instead of builds. Some of the people who only see things in terms of builds don't even know what my first sentence means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Some people choose to make characters instead of builds. Some of the people who only see things in terms of builds don't even know what my first sentence means. Agree, many of us just play a certain class and race combo not even thinking about if it's good or not, we just want to play that. I don't think that a +1 or +2 bonus is a big game changer, you will still be able to play whatever you choose to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Some people choose to make characters instead of builds. Some of the people who only see things in terms of builds don't even know what my first sentence means. Agree, many of us just play a certain class and race combo not even thinking about if it's good or not, we just want to play that. I don't think that a +1 or +2 bonus is a big game changer, you will still be able to play whatever you choose to. Don't get me wrong, I min/max to a certain extent, even though I consider myself primarily a roleplayer. But only within a given character concept. The fact is, none of the D&D video games are hard enough that you are forced to make optimal builds in order to win. And that also goes for all the official D&D tabletop adventure modules. A good DM will tailor encounter difficulty to the strength of their players' party, so in most cases, even in tabletop D&D you don't really need to make optimal builds either. So if you wanna be a halfling fighter two-handing a battleaxe, with extra Int because you want him to be good at History checks, go ahead. You're still gonna be able to finish the adventure.
Last edited by Firesnakearies; 22/10/20 01:26 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cleric of Innuendo
|
|
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
|
So if you wanna be a halfling fighter two-handing a battleaxe, with extra Int because you want him to be good at History checks, go ahead. You're still gonna be able to finish the adventure. She's not a fighter, but my current PC is a halfling ranger two-handing a battleaxe, with 12 INT for Investigation checks. Spooky.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I hated feeling railroaded into playing humans in the earlier BGs, due to dual classing. I certainly hope they don't' do the same in BG 3. From what I understand there is no difference between dual- and multiclassing in 5e, and it doesn't seem to be restricted to race or class combination. Multiclassing works pretty much the same as dual-classing did in BG2 in the sense that you need to meet a main stat requirement, in this case a min ability score of 13, but the system is way more flexible. Multiclassing in 5e is described as (paraphrasing): On every level up you choose which class you will gain a level in. The combined level of all you classes defines your current character level. So it's pretty much a very flexible dual-class, where you pick how and when you want to gain levels in your repecttive classes. In BG2 you would level up, as a multiclasses, simultaneously but slower and, as a dual class, you were forced to choose when to dual and then gimp yourself for a long time before you regained the level in your new class. We have the opportunity to play around with multiple classes at once in the EA version, as the game lets you choose to gain basic understanding of an off-class as an option every 4th level. I have no idea if this is Larians interpretation of multiclassing or if this as entirely different option covered by some other part of the rulebook. If anything needs to be corrected, or can be expanded, feel free to do so if you're more experienced or knowledgeable. My fear is a free feat at level 1 is gonna railroad a lot into humans. Oh, want to min max? F stats, play vhuman! No thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
