|
|
|
stranger
|
OP
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
|
While attempting to create my Tiefling Druid I found I was unable to lower my Charisma score below 10 (I wanted to RP her as unaccustomed to people), so I started to check the other scores and found I couldn't raise Wisdom above 15. I preceded to check other races/classes and found that ability score min/max is tied to races, my Tiefling could have max CHA 17, INT 16, and 15 for the rest, the elf for example had DEX at 17.
My issue is that by capping min and max (max more than min, as trying to code a char with less than 7 INT might be challenging, probably would be fun though as a character cant read with less that 7 INT), especially having it tied to race, it feels to me like you are telling me how to play the game. You are telling me that my Tiefling can't be as wise as a Human or Dwarf who are capped at 16 WIS.
I get that you are using the Variant: Customizing Ability Scores option from the core rule book, but there is a reason that is optional in the book, its for people who don't want to roll the dice and choose skill load-out. I would like the option to be able to roll for my abilities, Roll 4d6 and add the highest three six times, them apply those scores to the abilities I want; I get that it could be abused (but they would still just mod in 20 across the board), but it would only be abused by people who choose to, plus you could even make it one roll per start. Barring that, at least allow my Tiefling to be wise and get a higher starting wisdom score than 15.
Thank you for reading my post, love DOS and DOS2 and know you guys are doing your best to make BG3 even better, keep it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Aug 2014
|
You also can't create an Elf Fighter because elves can't get Strength to 16, or the system railroads all elves into finesse fighters because of this and the +2 Dex. At the same time the game rubs a giant muscle elf NPC in your face. Not cool. I'd like to play a str based High Elf Eldritch Knight because the race seems like the best natural fit for the class but mechanically it sucks. Elves getting 16 Dex as a secondary stat without having to pay extra is especially insulting since medium armor caps at +2 and you don't get any AC benefit for your perk. Medium Armor should cap at +3 Dex so Half Plate with 16 Dex would be on par with Full Plate with 8 Dex.
That said, rolling for ability scores is also out of whack when you can just reroll as much as you want to get ridiculously high stats. It feels like cheating in SP and in MP it's a balance problem.
We need a less restricted point buy system where you can get a 16 in your main stat without having to pay your left arm for it if you're not playing an optimized race.
Last edited by 1varangian; 26/07/21 07:58 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2017
|
I just checked the old BG games real quick and found out that in those games Halfling also has max 17 WIS, not 18 like all other races, at character creation (standard is min 3 and max 18). Other races have similar min/max on ability scores. Dwarf has max 17 CHA and 17 DEX. Elf has min 6 DEX, 7 CON, and 8 CHA.
I think it makes sense, if you think along the lines of "on average the typical halfling is less wise than a typical member of other races". From a certain angle, it's also not that unreasonable to argue that, under the exact same circumstances, a halfling can never be as wise as a member of other races. A human will always be more charismatic than a dwarf, under the exact same circumstances (same clothing, same knowledge, same social skills, same self-buff magical effects, etc.)
"We make our choices and take what comes and the rest is void."
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
|
The way stats (“ability scoresâ€) work in 5th edition with the point buy system is that everything caps at 15 unless racial bonuses are involved.
And even through level ups and feats you can’t raise any stat above 20.
Personally I hate dice rolling for stats. It can be either incredibly unfair to different players or borderline a cheat when you can re-roll as many times as you want completely unchecked by a DM supervising the process.
Last edited by Tuco; 26/07/21 09:14 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Aug 2014
|
One house rule to fix railroading the races into certain classes and builds with this point buy would be the free feat at level 1 discussed in another thread.
Feats like...
Resilient, +1 to an ability score and Proficiency in Saving Throw
Athlete, +1 Str or Dex, climb and stand up more quickly
Keen Mind, +1 Int and improved direction and time sense and memory (should be changed into something useful in BG3 like a spell slot or skill bonus)
Observant, +1 in Int or Wis, read lips, +5 bonus in passive Perception and Investigation.
Skill Expert, +1 to an ability, proficiency in a skill and expertise in another
These could let you start with a 16 in your main stat even if your race doesn't support that with the point buy cap of 15. And the feats would be really cool for customizing your character. Of course this would also mean that Githyanki or Elf could start with 18 in Str or Dex, but many other race and class combinations could get that 16 they need.
New possible builds would include:
Athlete High Elf Fighter with 16 Strength
Observant Tiefling Cleric with 16 Wisdom
Skill Expert Dwarf Rogue with 16 Dexterity
Keen Mind Halfling Wizard with 16 Intelligence
Resilient Human Cleric with 16 Wisdom and 17 Constitution and proficiency in Con Saving Throws
Last edited by 1varangian; 26/07/21 09:55 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
|
"Railroading" is vastly overstated.
And quite frankly in principle I prefer it to the complacent "Everyone must be equally good at everything" anyway. Especially if that "equity of opportunities" is not even obtained by reaching similar effectiveness by different means but quite literally by removing distinctive traits.
I like races having different peculiarities and strong points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Aug 2014
|
"Railroading" is vastly overstated.
And quite frankly in principle I prefer it to the complacent "Everyone must be equally good at everything" anyway. Especially if that "equity of opportunities" is not even obtained by reaching similar effectiveness by different means but quite literally by removing distinctive traits.
I like races having different peculiarities and strong points. Races would still have their strong points just the same even if you could milk an extra +1 to an ability score with an extra feat. The races that don't need that +1 can invest it in something else. Choices are fun and they make the character feel more your own and unique. It just doesn't feel good playing that Tiefling Cleric with 15 Wisdom or High Elf Fighter with 15 Strength. Rolling feels better in that regard since your "off-race" can potentially start with an 18 in their main stat. The +2 races still maintain their lead and are exceptionally good at something but anyone else can be on par with each other. That's the spirit of the rules and I'd like it to translate to BG3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2013
|
I think letting characters put an extra +1 in a stat of choice makes the system worse because if an 18 is available that becomes the new baseline and a 16 no longer looks good enough. Restricting it to +1 in a stat you don't already have a bonus in sounds better to me.
Personally though I prefer Tasha's system where you can swap an Elf's +2 Dex for +2 Str. I like this because it lets you much more freely choose which race appeals to you rather than being pushed heavily into tropes. Having no cost at all means it can make the races feel less distinct but that's less of an issue when its only one PC who has access to it.
Last edited by Rack; 26/07/21 10:11 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Aug 2014
|
I think letting characters put an extra +1 in a stat of choice makes the system worse because if an 18 is available that becomes the new baseline and a 16 no longer looks good enough. Restricting it to +1 in a stat you don't already have a bonus in sounds better to me.
Personally though I prefer Tasha's system where you can swap an Elf's +2 Dex for +2 Str. I like this because it lets you much more freely choose which race appeals to you rather than being pushed heavily into tropes. Having no cost at all means it can make the races feel less distinct but that's less of an issue when its only one PC who has access to it. I don't like the Tasha's swap because that does undermine the racial traits. They might as well not exist at all if you can just switch whatever you want. The 18 vs 16 really has to do with certain races getting that +2. Humans could only start with a 17 even if they got an additional +1 from a feat. Only races that have a +2 could start with 18 and that seems very appropriate. Otherwise that +2 doesn't mean anything. Half-Orcs need to be "stronger" and elves need to be "graceful".
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
|
The way that it leads people to min max, and talk about what is essential, or what is necessary, or a dead end choice, etc., is one of the things I hate about the point buy system, and it's why none of my tables ever use it. It creates statistically boring, cookie-cutter characters, or it creates a propensity for players to do so. I'm supremely not a fan of the latest suggestions that indicate Wizards might be trying to obliterate racial ability differences entirely... it just smacks of racial erasure more than anything else. Small, slightly off-topic, rant incoming...
I've always felt that 5e DOES do a really good job of supporting the idea that anyone can be anything, if they're determined to do so.... while still maintaining an acknowledgement that Different Peoples, From Different Backgrounds, Are Different and that that is a Good thing that we should Acknowledge and Celebrate, not sweep under the carpet or try to erase. Erasing the differences between different races of people is doing no-one any good...
People of an orcish bloodline are naturally predisposed to grow larger and stronger than the average; they naturally put on muscle more easily, and lose it more slowly; it's not a crime to acknowledge that.
People of elven descent are naturally predisposed to heightened agility and dexterity than the average human metric; it's not a crime to acknowledge that. It's a good thing to acknowledge.
The orc who spends his youth growing up in a scholarly enclave and dedicates his life and career to bookish studies is still going to be weaker physically than the halfling prize fighter who has made her life and career out of pile-driving people bigger than her in a sandy ring. That's normal, and natural, and that's how the system works.
Here's the other thing: That bookish orc is still going to have that natural predisposition, to a certain extent; it's apart of who he is, and it's a disservice to pretend it isn't. The human sitting beside him who has lived and grown up in the exact same circumstance and made the exact same life choices, will probably still be less likely to win in an arm wrestle, even if the prize fighter would slam them both with two fingers each at the same time.
Beyond that: There's a maximum limit to how excellent a mortal can become, and it's the same for every race. So, the elven archer who pursues the goal of being the most precise shot the world has ever seen might have a natural inclination towards the skill, and may find that learning and training it comes easily... while alongside her, the dwarven lad who just couldn't stand one more day looking at mines has harder road... but when they both push themselves into the upper echelons of being the best of the best, and the limits of what a mortal can attain, they are ultimately able to reach the same pinnacle, without one necessarily being better than the other. That dwarf will have to work harder for it, but he can do it... and if the two of them had dedicated themselves to endurance training instead, the tables would be reversed... there is literally NO case of "You can never be as strong/smart/fast as that other person, because you are a halfling/half-orc/dwarf"; that criticism does NOT exist in 5e, and it NEVER has.
It's good to acknowledge that different peoples are, in fact, different: it's not a crime and it's not discriminatory; it's celebrating the things that make us different from one another, in positive ways, which is what we should be doing.
Rolling for stats has no down side in a video game; if someone WANTS to reroll until they get a roll they like, then they are the only one that is affected by that. This is not something that will lead to the game being balanced around it (like other non-optional mechanics people often complain about). This one is and remains entirely between the player and their own game. Another game of contemporary publication went so far as to allow players to just directly SET their ability scores, if they wished to... and you know what? It didn't lead to a huge influx of everyone setting everything to 18, and it didn't affect game design or balance. It just let people recreate characters they ran in PnP, or tweak a roll that they didn't quite like, and it was really well received. Those who wanted to play with a strong, heroic stat line could, those who didn't, didn't have to. Those who thought it 'feels like cheating' to reroll... didn't have to roll; they just use point buy or standard array, or take the first roll they're given. We don't have that choice here. We're stuck with point buy: we can never have a 6, no matter how appropriate it should be for our character. I wanted to remake Tarabel, one of my previous characters, this play through, but I couldn't even come close because I couldn't bring three of my ability scores low enough (nor one high enough, but it was the low ones I was saddest about).
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
|
Rolling for stats has no down side in a video game; if someone WANTS to reroll until they get a roll they like, then they are the only one that is affected by that. Counterpoint: it totally does, as it creates a BLATANTLY better alternative that still abides to the core rules. That's like asking to the player "So, do you want to use the AWESOME SYSTEM OF AWESOMENESSâ„¢ or do you want to be masochistic sucker who settles down for the inferior option in the name of a fairness no one else will care about?". We talked other times, on other topics, of how games are often defined precisely by their systems and rules. In the precise moment you offer an option INSIDE THE RULES that is unquestionably superior under any metric, you are making all the other existing ones shitty by comparison and contrast. I'd be somewhat fine with dice rolling if it was applied under some strict rule like "You can reroll your dices only X amounts of times (let's say three at most) and then you'll have to settle for whatever the result is". But we all know that's not going to happen. Oh, and for the record people should know that dice rolling for abilities scores is ALREADY confirmed as something that's coming to the game, so we aren't really arguing if it should be a thing or not, since in a long Larian tradition it will be one regardless of our opinions. That doesn't mean I can't voice openly how irredeemably shitty I still think it is as a system in principle. of course if dice rolling will be in I will use dice rolling as well, because why should I be the one with the shitty "low tier" character when everyone else will leverage the exploit at cost of killing three mice clicking on that refresh button?
Last edited by Tuco; 26/07/21 11:04 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Aug 2014
|
You can roll and re-roll in Solasta and I don't like it. It's a weird love and hate thing because I feel like it opens up more characters concepts than the stingy 27 point buy with a cap of 15, but the re-rolling is like cheating.
If I get a weak roll I will of course re-reroll because playing gimped characters is no fun. Then I get an uber roll and feel like I'm cheating. I have to assign ability scores I feel shouldn't be that high for that particular character I have in mind. Then I re-roll again until I get good main stats (so that the PC is good at what they do) but also some lower rolls so that the PC won't be too godlike and perfect at everything. And the end result for all characters is something that could be achievable with a more generous point buy system than the default 27.
So I would go for a more generous, or less restrictive, point buy system for a video game or even a tabletop campaign (it doesn't feel right that an unlucky roll can force you to play a gimped character who sucks compared to everyone else). But I would also like those extra feat picks to make characters with very similar ability scores different from eachother.
Last edited by 1varangian; 26/07/21 11:21 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2013
|
I think letting characters put an extra +1 in a stat of choice makes the system worse because if an 18 is available that becomes the new baseline and a 16 no longer looks good enough. Restricting it to +1 in a stat you don't already have a bonus in sounds better to me.
Personally though I prefer Tasha's system where you can swap an Elf's +2 Dex for +2 Str. I like this because it lets you much more freely choose which race appeals to you rather than being pushed heavily into tropes. Having no cost at all means it can make the races feel less distinct but that's less of an issue when its only one PC who has access to it. I don't like the Tasha's swap because that does undermine the racial traits. They might as well not exist at all if you can just switch whatever you want. The 18 vs 16 really has to do with certain races getting that +2. Humans could only start with a 17 even if they got an additional +1 from a feat. Only races that have a +2 could start with 18 and that seems very appropriate. Otherwise that +2 doesn't mean anything. Half-Orcs need to be "stronger" and elves need to be "graceful". Exactly though, giving characters an optional +1 to any stat just makes the +2 racial stat bonuses more pronounced because you can end up on an even number. The whole point of Tasha's is to undermine the racial traits and this thread is about ways to do that. Allowing characters a stacking +1 bonus does the opposite of that. A non-stacking +1 would be the compromise position, the best str based fighters would still be Half Orcs, Shield Dwarves and Dragonborn but it would allow Elves to be second best alongside Humans and Half-Elves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
|
Point was, to Tuco, that that thing that you're saying? It doesn't actually happen. If you look to PnP, there are armies of people on both sides who prefer point buy, or rolling. One is not unanimously 'better' than the other, otherwise there wouldn't be that constant debate. Put that in a video game and the same thing will happen: there will be people who swear by point buy, and people who swear by rolling, and as long as they're both available, folks will generally be happy. If one was "unquestionably superior under any metric", then that would not happen. It does. I know at least three people personally who always use standard array or point buy, and who never roll (even in video games), for various personal reasons of choice or preference, while others at our tables always roll, for their own reasons and preferences. I don't mean to be aggressive, but the picture you're painting is simply not accurate to reality.
No-one ever *Actually* discriminates, complains or otherwise denigrates anyone for using one or the other, as long as there's table agreement. The idea that someone would be considered to have a low tier, gimped or poor character purely for using one system over the other is entirely fallacious, at least in my experience.
I'll add... No, I personally suspect that you would NOT be fine with it if there was a limit on rerolls, Tuco. You would, I suspect, because I respect that you are quick to see the issues inherent in systems, probably be the first one to point out that it didn't solve the perceived problem, because it was character generation and a player could just back out of it when they ran out or rerolls, and come back in for a fresh set and keep rolling.
Here's a question for you: If they went the full Solasta, and gave you points, array, rolling and direct setting (allowing you to simply set each of your sores to any value between 3 and 18), which would YOU use? You make it sound as though you'd feel obliged, even *compelled* to choose setting, and set all of your stats to 18 for everything all the time, because that would be the mechanically superior choice... and, for the supposition that 'everyone else' will 'leverage the exploit' to create 'superior' characters and you not wanting to be left behind with a lesser choice, you would do it and be unhappy about doing so... Is that incorrect? If so, what would you do? I am legitimately curious about this, and speak with good intentions - I want to understand where you stand on that spectrum of limits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
|
I don't like the Tasha's swap because that does undermine the racial traits. They might as well not exist at all if you can just switch whatever you want.
The 18 vs 16 really has to do with certain races getting that +2. Humans could only start with a 17 even if they got an additional +1 from a feat. Only races that have a +2 could start with 18 and that seems very appropriate. Otherwise that +2 doesn't mean anything. Half-Orcs need to be "stronger" and elves need to be "graceful". My view is that bigger numbers in a fixed category is the least interesting way to differentiate races. Everyone except human has some differing features, and in the tabletop versions you can even portray cultural differences. (Not so much in a game where all the dialogue is pre-written.) Because of the way bounded accuracy works, it's highly encouraged to match classes to only what your race is already good at, and in some cases, you have to match the subrace as well. Otherwise, you're not "playing optimally". That's not as big a deal for BG 3, but there's no denying that optimization affects players mindsets there as well. I would find it much more interesting to be able to play an atypical class for the race without feeling like I'm crippling myself mechanics-wise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
|
It still puzzles me when people say this...
Bounded accuracy decreases the need to swing everything you can in one direction. It makes it easier to make off-score combinations without actually making yourself notably less effective in actual play than someone who didn't. I've been there and lived it, many times over.
You don't generally end up feeling like you've gimped yourself for playing off-spec unless it was your goal to make a character deliberately bad at something... 5e is actually really good for reducing that problem that existed in older games. I play character concepts, because that's what I like doing - I rarely care about what's optimal and what isn't, and I've never felt like it's had a negative impact on my capabilities compared to everyone else around me... not once. I once played a variant human who rolled an 18 - so she was able to start with a 20 at level 1. She was effective, sure, but didn't overshadow or outshine anyone else, and didn't feel particularly more optimal than anyone else I've played, at least not by enough to be worth commenting about. (Edit to add for bonus: by level 4, some of the party had 'caught up' to her 'strong start'. By level 8 most of them had... it didn't end up being a big deal at all)
Last edited by Niara; 26/07/21 11:59 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Aug 2014
|
I think letting characters put an extra +1 in a stat of choice makes the system worse because if an 18 is available that becomes the new baseline and a 16 no longer looks good enough. Restricting it to +1 in a stat you don't already have a bonus in sounds better to me.
Personally though I prefer Tasha's system where you can swap an Elf's +2 Dex for +2 Str. I like this because it lets you much more freely choose which race appeals to you rather than being pushed heavily into tropes. Having no cost at all means it can make the races feel less distinct but that's less of an issue when its only one PC who has access to it. I don't like the Tasha's swap because that does undermine the racial traits. They might as well not exist at all if you can just switch whatever you want. The 18 vs 16 really has to do with certain races getting that +2. Humans could only start with a 17 even if they got an additional +1 from a feat. Only races that have a +2 could start with 18 and that seems very appropriate. Otherwise that +2 doesn't mean anything. Half-Orcs need to be "stronger" and elves need to be "graceful". Exactly though, giving characters an optional +1 to any stat just makes the +2 racial stat bonuses more pronounced because you can end up on an even number. The whole point of Tasha's is to undermine the racial traits and this thread is about ways to do that. Allowing characters a stacking +1 bonus does the opposite of that. A non-stacking +1 would be the compromise position, the best str based fighters would still be Half Orcs, Shield Dwarves and Dragonborn but it would allow Elves to be second best alongside Humans and Half-Elves. But now +1 is a soft requirement to play a class effectively and +2 doesn't really do anything more. I'd much rather have a system where Tiefling Clerics, Dwarf Wizards, Elf Fighters and many others don't get hosed and could be on par with humans. And where that +2 would actually mean something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Aug 2014
|
It still puzzles me when people say this...
Bounded accuracy decreases the need to swing everything you can in one direction. It makes it easier to make off-score combinations without actually making yourself notably less effective in actual play than someone who didn't. I've been there and lived it, many times over.
You don't generally end up feeling like you've gimped yourself for playing off-spec unless it was your goal to make a character deliberately bad at something... 5e is actually really good for reducing that problem that existed in older games. I play character concepts, because that's what I like doing - I rarely care about what's optimal and what isn't, and I've never felt like it's had a negative impact on my capabilities compared to everyone else around me... not once. I once played a variant human who rolled an 18 - so she was able to start with a 20 at level 1. She was effective, sure, but didn't overshadow or outshine anyone else, and didn't feel particularly more optimal than anyone else I've played, at least not by enough to be worth commenting about. When I play an Elf Fighter with 15 Strength and BG3 rubs Lae'zel's 55% vs. my PC's 50% in my face in every fight, it's just a constant reminder that my main PC is inferior. Maybe it's a BG3 thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Aug 2020
|
I am not a fan of this choice. I stopped being a fan of the "different races have fundamentally different abilities that are constant through every member of race no matter what" route for a long time ago and think there are more interesting ways to create mechanical distinctions between characters. I can more or less forgive this route in physical stats because yeah, an average halfling and an average human *are* going to fundamnetally have different physical capacities. But tying maximums to mental stats feels wrong to me. What does it actually mean to say that a halfling can never be as wise as a dwarf? Or a dwarf can never be as charismatic as a tiefling? Those things are super subjective. Like, why on earth couldn't a tiefling be as wise and perceptive as any given human or dwarf?
I think that limiting the maximum values you can get at character creation limits roleplay potential in an unhelpful way, making certain builds even less viable. It's one thing to have the stat bonuses there and say "hey, work around these," it's another to just have a hard ceiling there that players can't even try to work around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Not a fan of rolling dice for ability scores, my old d&d group swapped to a buy system cause of people rolling well vs others not rolling good at all and characters being radically superior than others. In a video game scenario most people are just going to roll till they have really good stats, what would be the point of just not giving them the 20+ ability scores across there attributes from the start, its straight up stupid and pointless. You'll get people begging for this and say, "Oh I won't cheat, I promise I won't." WHO CARES IF YOU ARE GOING TO ROLL MORE OR LESS!
The point buy system currently works just fine how it is, rather see dev resources go to something more important than this.
|
|
|
|
|
