D&D 5E Evolution of D&D, and choices

[Derren]

Gnomes aren't real. That's a ridiculous analogy. They are as smart as the person writing them wants to be, that's it. And if the writer doesn't want racial modifiers, then end of story. Which of course, again, all of that ignores how PCs are not a typical representation of their species anyway. Unless you can point me to a typical human that can take on a dragon with a dagger and have a good chance of winning...

also, the differences between the variation of the typical human being able to see color as opposed to the differences in variations between strength, intelligence, etc, is vastly different. Talk about a false equivalency.


But it's nice to see you're falling back on the same argument in the early 80s to justify why female PCs should have a strength cap. Noted.

Orcs are also not real, so there is no problem with them having an int penalty for gameplay reasons, right?

But it's nice to see you're falling back to the usual extremist tactic of accusing others of morally wrong behaviour when they run out of arguments. Noted.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Orcs are also not real, so there is no problem with them having an int penalty for gameplay reasons, right?

Right. If you want orcs at less INT, then make them so in your game. Done. See? Simple.

But it's nice to see you're falling back to the usual extremist tactic of accusing others of morally wrong behaviour when they run out of arguments. Noted.

it's an extremist tactic now to say it's ridiculous to argue for gender based attribute limitations in D&D? That's been a debunked bad argument for over 30 years. Hardly an extremist position.

 

[Derren]

Right. If you want orcs at less INT, then make them so in your game. Done. See? Simple.

If you want orcs at more INT, then make them so in your game. Done. See? Simple.

Only that having different races have different attributes offers choice and enhances the game, while your idea of making everything the same would make the game worse.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If you want orcs at more INT, then make them so in your game. Done. See? Simple.

Only that having different races have different attributes offers choice and enhances the game, while your idea of making everything the same would make the game worse.

Not having racial stat differences doesn't make everything the same unless you think that stat differences are literally the only thing that matters.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Of course they're not the only thing that matters, and races differ in many ways. Mechanically under the current system, however, I think many players use stat bonuses as the most important factor in determining what race they want to play, if they don't have a concept in mind that points toward a different race. Most D&Ders are casuals after all, and the most obvious place to look for mechanical advantage is the racial attribute bonus w/r/t the class they want. If you want that to change, you have to uncouple the bonus from the race somehow.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Not having racial stat differences doesn't make everything the same unless you think that stat differences are literally the only thing that matters.

Indeed. Also, that line of thinking rings too much of optimization for my tastes, and I'm not a fan of optimization (to each their own). it's why I don't buy the "racial stat modifiers give more choice", because it doesn't. Not across the board. It's the opposite. How many warlocks are tieflings or half elves, compared to halflings or wood elves?

If stat modifiers were class based instead of racial based, that's when you'd see more choice and diversity in class/race combos.

 

[Catolias]

Why is having darkvision because of biology ok but not being stronger because of biology?

Simply, an attribute bonus / penalty system is a slippery slope. There are better ways to account for biology

What you propose is basically removing races entirely and everyone playing a human.

No. I’m suggesting that delivering an inclusive and diverse D&D game means a radical change. It means move away from a race based system to a class system. This will means a different method of accounting for differences between genus / family / ancestry than using bonus / penalty modifiers to abilities.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

P.S. Stop telling me I'm a racist because I don't have an issue with evil monsters.

Can you point to an instance on these forums where anyone has done that?

 

[Oofta]

Can you point to an instance on these forums where anyone has done that?

The whole "I'm not saying you're a racist, but having orcs that are always evil like you do is racist" isn't enough?

But you know what, I'm done with this topic. Have a good one.

 

[ccs]

Except the core point here isn't your actions. It is that you, Oofta, are clearly out of step with the mainstream understanding of alignment. As such when you use the term LG you are not communicating with most other people - and when other people use LG they are not communicating with people like you because the understandings are too different.

?? Why are you so stuck on Oofta tripping someone with a hammer? It was a DMs call in a game you weren't in.
I'm also positive that I've got examples of Captain America doing non-lethal trip stunts with his shield. I can't give you issue #s without venturing into the attic & digging through the long boxes though....

The original L/N/C alignments representing a metaphysical clash between the wilderness and civilization made sense. Nine point alignment does not because there are too many understandings so it loses most of its value as a shared shorthand.

So you can grasp the Law/Chaos axis, but not the Good/Evil? Did you miss your childhood somehow? Because you generally learn the concept of Good vs Evil 1st & fairly young. Good guys/Bad guys, in religion, myth, fairy tales, super heroes vs super villains, Star Wars.....