Search results

because That person is directly going against the basic assumptions laid out for the campaign instead of finding something interesting to play within the set game space. also, why is the other player ‘ranting’? I could easily try to say ‘when the guy wanting the Tabaxi is ranting about how he...

It is a restriction if what the player wanted WAS the fluff of the Tabaxi. It’s not a restriction if what they want is the stats. The species of the Tabaxi does not exist. If someone plays something different with the same stats that species still does not exist. Crunch is not the only...

They were brought up as an example so everyone keeps using them. It’s more convenient that finding something new to insert in every post.

You honestly believe that if this ... walked around in Victorian London the result would be a mild ‘huh, that’s odd’? seriously? what in the entire history of the human race would lead you to that conclusion?

Yes, they did not fight ogres. They fought something with the same stats, but they were not, in fact, ogres. In the game space they were something else. When someone is restricting a Particular thing for flavor by definition the flavor or ‘fluff’ if you will, is the thing that they are excluding.

But see, if the position is existing vs not existing there really isn’t a mutual solution. then they defacto aren’t playing a Tabaxi but playing a human with different stats.

By that measure your opinion that they could fit well is just a subjective opinion, as under that standard ‘fit’ and ‘atmosphere’ is entirely subjective and you can’t have a conversation.

Now look who is trying to engage in semantics and wordplay and avoiding the essential points.

It absolutely is not ‘just wordplay’. The point of the game is the enjoyment of all of the participants, and if it harshes that then it is objectively a bad fit for that groups conception of the setting which is' in the end the only conception of the setting that really matters. What your...

They are objectively a bad fit if they ruin the atmosphere for one of the participants.

conversely there is nothing that makes them a good fit outside of a ‘subjective perspective’. Why does your subjective perspective auto win?

You could use the gods as an ‘excuse to include more options’. But then they would become different gods. You keep trying to say that excluding things doesn’t effect flavor but that is manifestly not true. Regular halflings and Prests in Dark Sun provide an entirely different flavor. Adding...

.

Conversely, I’m not sure if I’d want to play with someone who couldn’t possibly just pick something from the nearly infinite possibilities that are available in a campaign and just has to play something which isn’t or they can’t have fun.

Those words are not abstract. I’m pulling the actual literal definitions.

Not “for me”. In actuality. By definition.

You are trying to count angels on the head of a pin and argue that things don’t have their commonly accepted meaning, without offering any compelling arguments why your altenate ‘meaning’ should hold or have weight.

To test: “reveal the strengths or capabilities of (someone or something) by putting them under strain.“ in no wise does murdering the shopkeeper put the abilities under strain. if he is capable of meaningful combat, and will respond with it if you attack then he is a combatant. If he will not...

Some weapons grade sophistry there. You know very well that isn’t how challenge is being used or defined in this situation.

I believe that a zero challenge rating is ‘zero to ten XP’. Note the inclusion of zero. Also ... “When making this calculation, don’t count any monsters whose challenge rating is significantly below the average challenge rating of the other monsters in the group unless you think the weak...