Search results

What does it even mean for things like this to be "objectively evil?" Reasonable people in the setting would still oppose killing tea drinkers for their milk use or the Gygaxian warcrime paladin. Would this make them evil too? What's the point?

Please share with the whole class!

I'm sure Bruce Lee actually was pretty man strong, though Arnold probably was quite a bit stronger. But the things in which Lee would beat Arnold are not measure solely by strength score in D&D. it contributes to them, but there are other factors, such as proficiency bonus, extra attacks...

That seems more like it is somewhat abstract, but not subjective. Why? Why they have same capabilities? If the goliath is way bigger and stronger, why they do not also hit harder? And again, why are we having these scores, if they cannot tell us about the fiction? You seem to want the rules...

It is not subjective. Higher wisdom is objectively more aware than lower wisdom. But I really don't get what you think the point of ability scores is. If you think they're just arbitrary numbers that do not inform us about the fiction, what purpose do they serve?

The latter is better, thus more aware.

Awareness, in both literal and spiritual sense.

Ability to avoid being hit via dodging, parrying and deflection by armour. Ability to take blows and withstand damage. The level of skill. It's in the name. Some are somewhat vague and abstract. Strength actually isn't. It says it measures physical strength like one would expect.

So strength doesn't measure strength? Why call it strength then? Why have it? I don't get this... 🤷 I have no use for mechanics for the sake of mechanics. If they don't represent anything concrete, get rid of them.

Yes. Which is weird. What does this represent? If they don't measure anything objective, why we have them then? If a strength score doesn't measure how strong you are, why call it strength and why have it in the first place?

I also think that paladin as popularised by D&D is a really strange concept. I like knights, but knights in most fiction are completely mundane. They might be religious, but everyone in medieval times was. A religious knight with magic powers is concept that was pretty much invented for D&D.

Paladin has always been a bit ick class for me. I think it does poor job representing Arthurian knights apart Galahad, and the super religious knight of faith definitely most strongly corresponds to the crusading knightly orders such as Templars. Paladins are the class for being a judgemental...

Perhaps, but that's not the problem I'm alluding to, that problem is that we have two different, differently working mechanical ways to represent the same fictional quality, and that is confused.

But given that we have ability score called "strength" which is supposed to measure physical might, this seems very confused. Like you're strong, but you're not strong? What? o_O

So it is wrong to depict vulcans being better at mental computation and information recall than humans? It is wrong to depict wookiees as stronger than humans? Also, even without ASIs, the D&D species are full of biological essentialism. Aarakocra are biological-essentially better flyers than...

But they also are not humans. Are we allowed in fiction to imagine sapient species with capabilities different than those of a human?

I understand the gameplay reasons for not having species tied ASIs but it also seems weird and gamey to me that all these different species just happen to have the exact same range of capability in all these areas. Granted, the strength is the biggest issue for me, as small species being just as...

Well, there are degrees. That people are fine with some level of cinematic action hero stuff in their fantasy game doesn't mean that their disbelief suspenders have infinite capacity. How D&D handles size is certainly an area mine struggle with.

Its tail attacks better to have the reach 40!