Search results

It's how they know a lot of spells that covers their identity. Wizards are "the smart guy". No one else in the PH cares much about Int, but wizards are all about it, so much so that they can find new class abilities as treasure (in the form of spell scrolls) in a way even other spellcasters...

Not even WotC is that litigious...usually. Bad for public opinion. Just don't throw it in their face.

It also happens to tend toward the more realistic, a big plus in my book.

Then don't make a class that isn't good at anything? Seems simple enough.

Because as you said, people play different ways, and emphasize different aspects of the game. In a game with a strong economic or political focus, why not have a class good at those things and less so at others? Why must every class be equally good at fighting monsters? And if you're worried...

The trick to that, as I see it, is to have/find/create some good subsystems for areas of the game outside of combat, and have such classes interact with them in a mechanical way. Use the rules for that stuff, and leave the DM free to resolve issues, handle the opposition, and build the world.

Or just make them on your own and post them with no intention of profit.

Honestly, I liked it better when they weren't. Seems unnecessary.

Why exactly can't you do that? Who says all possible classes need to be equally effective and/or useful in all campaigns?

Sure, so all PC halflings are fighting against their instincts, or otherwise have no choice, to adventure. I could get behind that.

You used the phrase "deliberately manipulate", I believe.

You can deliberately manipulate someone with the motivation to not be a jerk to them, to not hurt their feelings about something they like, or to avoid conflict. People do it all the time. I just prefer not to assume it.

Ideally for me we wouldn't have ASIs at all, either in chargen or at level up. Don't see much good that comes from them, and feats are more fun. I'd rather go the TSR route for stats and bring back minimums for different heritages.

My group is the opposite. None of them see any reason not to use the racial ASIs, which just make sense to us. At least in my friends PH only 5e game that's what we do. Our other game is Level Up, and they attach ASI to background, so it's a moot point.

Right, which is why I can't get behind it because it's an informed trait from my perspective. To me PCs and NPCs are not different types of creatures, so anything possessed by the whole species should be possessed by both. It's like saying that all Drow are good heroes yearning to throw off...

I voted sorcerer and fighter. Both are ill-defined in terms of niche, with one being "person who fights with magic" and the other being, "person who fights with not-magic". At least wizards have the spellbook thing, which at this point in D&D's development is pretty unique.

I'm glad that works for you, but for me I have a hard time getting behind what is essentially an informed trait, since PC mechanics don't reflect it and I don't see PCs and NPCs as fundamentally different beings (since the core reason for that distinction is narrative).

In an adventurer, being a homebody is a psychological weakness.

How do you square that with a lack of a Strength bonus?

I thought D&D species weren't allowed to have psychological features.