That stat bonus expresses something about the world, not necessarily about my character. Exactly that is why the expectation exists and thus why that NPC can plausibly say such a thing.
I'm not saying it's super-important. But it does work that way.
I suppose I can understand that angle somewhat, yes.
Please Larian- no last minute changes without player testing. At the very least make it optional.
There were actually closed tests for acts 2 and 3 so there is a very good chance playtesters liked it. Means we could like it in the end as well. Lets give it a try regardless.
Please Larian- no last minute changes without player testing. At the very least make it optional.
There were actually closed tests for acts 2 and 3 so there is a very good chance playtesters liked it. Means we could like it in the end as well. Lets give it a try regardless.
I don't need to test it to know I don't like it, the changes are surface level and easy to understand. Half-elves have one less attribute point in exchange for a bunch of proficiencies that many builds will find completely useless, humans have 3 less attribute points in exchange for the same stuff as half-elves basically, and we know nothing about what shield dwarfs are going to get in exchange for their 1 less attribute point, if they even get anything at all.
'Closed tests'... probably people chosen because of 'reasons'. Anything done in secret cannot be trusted in full faith. Options are always good. This way we all win. I thoguht the goal was the more options the better?
'Closed tests'... probably people chosen because of 'reasons'. Anything done in secret cannot be trusted in full faith. Options are always good. This way we all win. I thoguht the goal was the more options the better?
Anyone could sign up for the playtesting of acts 2 and 3, so it wasn't secret and I seriously doubt they were targeting a specific demographic like you seem to be implying. It doesn't mean that they'd select everyone, but that doesn't mean they had a hidden agenda either.
Then why was it closed? Closed vs open?. Hmmm... For the record, I avoided the open playtest because I want to be as fresh as possible when I play. The last and only open beta I did ended up being worthless garbage that soured me on game and that company. If I ever playtest for a game company again, I'm gonna be paid for it not pay for it.
So what exactly does this system do? Does it concern just stats, or everything like for example elf racial immunity to sleep, dark vision, or increased move speed for wood elves? There’s no more of those?
Please Larian- no last minute changes without player testing. At the very least make it optional.
There were actually closed tests for acts 2 and 3 so there is a very good chance playtesters liked it. Means we could like it in the end as well. Lets give it a try regardless.
I don't need to try it to know what I like and dislike. It is very similar to the optional Tasha's Cauldron system in PnP which I dislike as well (in fact "hate" would be appropriate). It's also not 1:1 translation of Tasha's, otherwise we'd get the variant human as that is the standard human under that system if I'm not mistaken.
So what exactly does this system do? Does it concern just stats, or everything like for example elf racial immunity to sleep, dark vision, or increased move speed for wood elves? There’s no more of those?
Racial attributes are no longer set and are now a generic +2/+1 you allocate wherever you want. The problem with this is that some races got more than a combined total of +3 to their attributes, like humans, half-elves and shield dwarfs. Racial abilities like immunity to sleep and whatnot are still tied to the specific race, but now all races can have the same attribute levels and some races have nerfed attribute totals compared to what they previously had. Humans are down a whopping 3 points and half elves/shield dwarfs are down 1 point. Honestly, I want the entire old system back, but just adding a toggle for more attribute scores on the affected races (in exchange for no longer getting their new proficiencies that are meant to compensate) would be enough for me.
This is a very bad change. Sadly minmaxers who have no clue about role playing are more and more dictating how role playing games evolve, leaving the actual role playing people who had no problem sacrificing a 5% on a D20 roll for a interesting character concept.
This is a very bad change. Sadly minmaxers who have no clue about role playing are more and more dictating how role playing games evolve, leaving the actual role playing people who had no problem sacrificing a 5% on a D20 roll for a interesting character concept.
This has nothing to do with min/maxing; arguably the previous system has better min/maxing options. This has greater FREEDOM, allowing people to not feel overly gimped simply by picking a race. There's a reason half-elves and humans are basically the most played. I don't need to be optimal, but I'd at least like to not feel awful about picking a race that isn't, by base, designed for a class. I'm 100% pleased with this BECAUSE of roleplaying opportunities.
After viewing this video from Wolfheart, I think the easiest solution (outside of just ignoring those of us who are dissatisfied with the changes) is to just go full Tasha's and let humans, half-elves and shield dwarfs keep their higher attribute score totals, but let them be distributed as you see fit just like every other race now. It would be the easiest thing to implement out of the various hybrid systems and would address the issue of those races being nerfed and the proficiency compensations being weird and not helpful to many builds. Again, I would prefer a toggle between the old system and the new system, but this is an acceptable compromise to me and it would probably be significantly easier to implement.
This is a very bad change. Sadly minmaxers who have no clue about role playing are more and more dictating how role playing games evolve, leaving the actual role playing people who had no problem sacrificing a 5% on a D20 roll for a interesting character concept.
This has nothing to do with min/maxing; arguably the previous system has better min/maxing options. This has greater FREEDOM, allowing people to not feel overly gimped simply by picking a race. There's a reason half-elves and humans are basically the most played. I don't need to be optimal, but I'd at least like to not feel awful about picking a race that isn't, by base, designed for a class. I'm 100% pleased with this BECAUSE of roleplaying opportunities.
It all has to do with minmaxing. A character is not gimped because he has 5% less success chance. Only minmaxers think that. And humans are in all RPGs the most played race, regardless of power because people identify with them the most. Nothing prevented people from making any race and class combination they wanted. And they were all playable and effective. The only thing limiting FREEDOM were some people who refused to play anything not completely optimized and so they whined till WotC, sadly, listened and traded flavour and verisimilitude for minmax potential, showing how little they care about their old fans. And the laughable thing is, the minmaxers are now just discussing which racial special ability is best for which class to exclusively play that. Just look at the barbarian thread here...
I dont think anyone felt 'gimped' by the old style of ability scores tied to race. This has never been a complaint I ever heard until recently by a certain sect of people that has zero logic. Different fantasy races being better/worse than other fantasy races makes perfect sense. Real world politics should have nothing to do with it. The strongest halfling should not be as strong as the strongest halforc (not counting magic and other factors). It's just that simple. But, that's the way it. We gots to sucks it up in BG3.
Humans and half elves are picked for the most obvious reason - they are human and half human and they most look like humans. Same why male characters are more popular than female characters - more male players are playing. If more women were playing the base character would be female.
This change has zero to do with roleplaying and zero to do with sales.
I dont think anyone felt 'gimped' by the old style of ability scores tied to race. This has never been a complaint I ever heard until recently by a certain sect of people that has zero logic. Different fantasy races being better/worse than other fantasy races makes perfect sense. Real world politics should have nothing to do with it. The strongest halfling should not be as strong as the strongest halforc (not counting magic and other factors). It's just that simple. But, that's the way it. We gots to sucks it up in BG3.
Humans and half elves are picked for the most obvious reason - they are human and half human and they most look like humans. Same why male characters are more popular than female characters - more male players are playing. If more women were playing the base character would be female.
This change has zero to do with roleplaying and zero to do with sales.
You've made quite a few posts, some of which I've been sorely tempted to reply to, but I'll say one thing:
The strongest halfling is in fact EXACTLY as strong as the strongest orc. They are both 20 strength, it has just taken the halfling longer to get there. But they are in fact equally as strong.
The fact that you don't seem to know this very, very basic fact about 5e speaks volumes to me
I dont think anyone felt 'gimped' by the old style of ability scores tied to race. This has never been a complaint I ever heard until recently by a certain sect of people that has zero logic. Different fantasy races being better/worse than other fantasy races makes perfect sense. Real world politics should have nothing to do with it. The strongest halfling should not be as strong as the strongest halforc (not counting magic and other factors). It's just that simple. But, that's the way it. We gots to sucks it up in BG3.
Humans and half elves are picked for the most obvious reason - they are human and half human and they most look like humans. Same why male characters are more popular than female characters - more male players are playing. If more women were playing the base character would be female.
This change has zero to do with roleplaying and zero to do with sales.
You've made quite a few posts, some of which I've been sorely tempted to reply to, but I'll say one thing:
The strongest halfling is in fact EXACTLY as strong as the strongest orc. They are both 20 strength, it has just taken the halfling longer to get there. But they are in fact equally as strong.
The fact that you don't seem to know this very, very basic fact about 5e speaks volumes to me
Yes, that was one mistake in 5E. The racial ASI should also have increased the attribute maximum. But using this oversight as justification why it makes sense that halflings are as strong as orcs also speaks volumes.
