Search results

It's more a case of you often see people who don't know about 4th Ed suggesting solutions for 5th Ed problems that are remarkably like solutions that were used in 4th Ed for 3rd Ed problems, that were reintroduced because Pathfinder did so well in comparison.

But there are evil nations that aren't tribal. So we have good and evil tribal groups and good and evil non-tribal groups. So the just being evil, doesn't seem to be an issue. I'm not sure about the brutishness and stupidity of particular groups, there are certainly tribal groups in D&D that...

To be honest you can do both, in both. With magical healing you can easily get to full health in short rest even if they are doing repeat castings of a spell that cures 1 hp a go. Time isn't really a major factor if you aren't counting in 6 second rounds.

Or short rest abilities recover between encounters. You could have Daily Powers and Encounter Powers.... where have I heard that before? Seems like we are reinventing the wheel, a wheel lots of people thought was wonky last time it was on the D&D car. Personally I liked it, but it didn't go...

Yes because imaging my character having little blue and red bars to track mana and health like a computer game is so much more realistic than imaging my character recovering by having some time to rest and treat their injuries. Let me just reach into my backpack and pull out one of mana potions...

But there are plenty of tribal groups in D&D that aren't evil, brutish, stupid, etc and have detailed cultures, so what is your problem? Admittedly they don't all fit in the PHB, but D&D has a massive history across multiple campaign settings, to think that tribal is only used for evil races...

They haven't even been able to achieve the same level until 3rd Edition, And they haven't had the same intellectual capacities until 5th edition, in fact not until updates to this edition.

What makes you think, it applies to a whole species? The PHB doesn't have room to speak about the entire species, so it talks in general terms. If read in a text book that the British enjoy tea, do you assume every single person living in Britain enjoys tea, or do you assume the majority do?

Or a more recent one The Scully Effect on women in STEM fields, which wasn't intended as propaganda.

Really? You see any issues that someone could take with any of the stuff you wrote? Smarter than apes, less intelligent than player species (int 7). They would be classed as beasts, not humanoids. So black slaves have never been compared to smart apes, or being non-human? Unable to speak (or...

It isn't a fair analogy, you need to show malice intent for D&D to be acting as the bully in this instance. There is no evidence this was done to harass or harm like in your example. The evidence that it even is a caricature of the victim is slim and circumstantial at best. In this thread, in...

You are just recreating the "problem", at some point anything you create someone will say is a reflection of prejudices to X marginalized group and the process starts again.

No it is important to understand these are fictional tools to represent "an aspect of ones own self", not a real-life human culture, or people. Once you realise they are a fictional tool and not a racist depiction the problem goes away. If you humanize them and make they rounded and complex...

So not human then, just reflection, limited aspects of humanity. Archetypes are like analogies. They tend to be fixed, so not the full range of human experience like I was saying.

If they are us why bother having non-human species at all in RPGs. Clearly they aren't us otherwise they would be human.

Are you talking about Stone Age humans or Orcs, because I can agree that your Stone Age human, intellect wise is probably capable of living in a modern world, our knowledge comes form culture and education, how much the brain has evolved since then is likely very small. You can't say the same...

No it's a feature that every species views outsiders with some level of distrust, that each species (and or their culture) has some flaws, they aren't "scumbags" or "worthless, terrible people" for not being perfect.

That would be like IVF rather than natural reproduction (and heck we are talking about the same species so no massive hurdles to jump). So it often fails, and only makes up about 1% to 2% of births in the USA where the technology is readily available. So still rare, very rare.