[quote=zarchaun44]I think I will pass on this now. At least BG 1 and 2 stuck to the d&d rules and not change everything for the causal whiny players.
To be perfectly honest, nowhere did I read, that people want the game to be easier, no one voiced concern about multiplayer by RAW would be too complicated. So I don't know, If there are whiny casuals or if that wasn't solely Larians Idea. I'm playing Guild Wars 2 at the moment and there are a lot of casuals, but the game never holds your hand and some fights ( Caudecus comes to mind, because I did that fight yesterday) are downright sadistic. And still people, casuals included, play it. So I don't think, that people necessarily demand a game to be easier, but the studios think, they should make them easier, dumb them down for the masses.
The concerns about the NEED to appease the casuals are generally bogus, anyway. No one will stick through a 150+ hours RPG REMAINING a "casual", to begin with. People will either get bored and bounce off or they will get invested and then start noticing the eventual flaws and cracks on the system by the sheer amount of times they'll interact with it. No system needs to be "dumbed down" to have an appeal, that's a myth. Where the difference is made is in the on-boarding, on the other hand. We are all constantly "newbies" for most of the things we approach in this hobby. Without going to far, I never played a single game of Pathfinder before approaching the two Owlcat games and I'm now playing (very sparsely) the Rogue Trader beta, based on a system I didn't even know existed until few months ago.
Originally Posted by Warlocke
I just don’t understand why people are so fixated on your stats being tied to your race. This change gives you more role playing options. I’m ecstatic that i can play my dwarf arcane trickster without feeling like I’m shooting myself in the foot. The choice between do I want my character to be good or do I want to play what I think is a fun idea is not an interesting decision. Races still have unique traits. The game is reportedly highly reactive to your race with lots of special roleplay options. And there is apparently even race specific equipment and gear.
Everybody is entitled to their opinions, but this objection completely eludes me. Wedding race to attributes is dumb, was always dumb, just like restricting classes to specific races back in the day. I’ve been playing D&D so long, I need to play weird characters just to keep it interesting. How is have each class possess a few mathematically superior race options an interesting choice? How many half-orc barbarians and gnome wizards do we need?
And the best part is, if you really feel that your half-orc wizard should have +2 to STR, you are free to make that choice. But if when given that choice, if you would always obviously always pick not to, why would you want that forced on everyone who wants to play this combination? A half-orc wizard isn’t benefiting from Savage Attacks and is missing out on the option to get a more useful racial trait, so there is still a strategic cost being payed. But at least you don’t need also lose out on a feet because you start with a defect in your primary stat.
Thanks for coming to my TEDTalk.
There's nothing "roleplay-enhancing" about removing intrinsic differences and possible barriers to appease immediate convenience. There's a reason if the "play pretend" at the foundation of roleplay across decades moved away from toddlers screaming at each other "Then I'll be X and do Y better than you!" without rhyme or reason to wargame-like setups, where people build characters according to fixed, well-defined parameters and manage combat scenarios (and more) through a set of shared "rules of engagement".
"But I wanted to have my cake an eat it too" may be something people can be very emotional about, but it's hardly the strong argument in favor of improving immersion. For instance one could argue that rather than having half-orcs and gnomes be basically identical in terms of physical and medical potential (which to make sense basically requires for these archetype to stop meaning anything), your rules could be designed around a way to make a physically less powerful gnome viable as a barbarian leveraging his own innate characteristics.
I will never be convinced by any argument that boils down to "I strongly feel I shouldn't be limited in any way". Anyway, this is a bit of a digression at this point, since what's done is done. And not even part of what the topic was about, anyway.
The old race stat bonus don't make any sense in the first place though.
Humanity has had the highest concentrations of apocalyptic level wizards and sorcerer in lore. The idea gnomes or half elves are inharently better than them in these classes is laughable.
Heck one of the descriptions of the barb in dnd beyond is one soloing a frost giant.
The idea that these immutable stat difference exist is laughable.
Lol no. The diffetence are numbers. There are a lot more "apocalyptic" human wizards because there are a lot more² humans than gnomes. And what the barbarian has to do with this topic only you know.[/quote]
There are more high level human wizards, and they are stronger than gnomes. It makes no lore sense to have gnome be inharently better wizards.
Barbarian's consistently ignore tradional biology and overpower things they shouldn't be able to all the time. Wulfgar does this.
Acting like ASI are some intrinsic lore thing is just plain wrong. It's a gamy thing that only existed to artificially create party diversity, that isn't reflected in lore at all.
