Search results

You are implying that there is something wrong with coming from a primitive culture. I don't need to say the vile phrase, "You're one of the good ones", because I take people (including orcs) as I find them.

Does that mean that no story from now on is allowed to have a villain? Because whatever group that villain belongs to will bring out the response, "How DARE you suggest that people of (villains group) are villains!"

How about portraying tribal orcs as people who CAN be reasoned with? During the two world wars, the Allies portrayed Germans that way, no (other) 'race' involved.

Is the film Dances With Wolves 'bad' because it portrays an ethnicity as being tribal? In the World of Warcraft film based on the game, orcs were depicted as tribal. Does that mean they were depicted as native americans? Did the film portray orcs negatively, because they are a tribal society...

If you want to limit this to combat effectiveness, what's less effective about a Str/Con-based rogue in combat? Swapping more hit points for one point of AC, and having exactly the same weapon stats with a finesse weapon using strength?

Yeah, Tolkien (consciously or not) was tapping into those subconscious biases. That's what writers do! They use tropes as a way to harness the subconscious of readers to get their messages across more efficiently. Tropes are not, in and of themselves, bad. In this case, Tolkien wanted us to...

Nor are orcs.

You said that having Cha 16 doesn't help them use their rogue features (you changed it to 'base' rogue features later). But whether the rogue gets her features from her class or subclass is irrelevant to the rogue. For her, she has a bunch of features, she's a single class rogue, and she...

I, and the Cha 16 rogue swashbuckler I'm currently making, beg to differ. : )

Based on an exchange I had on this thread on Thursday, I suggested a houserule to the guy who's going to start the Dragon Heist campaign on Wednesday. In the campaign document he shared with us today, this is included:- "If you so wish, I would allow a racial bonus of +2 to any ability score to...

Or how about this: eliminate racial bonuses to Str, but give those races that used to have +2 Str the racial ability to add +1 to attack and damage rolls with melee weapons?

I actually like that solution! Allow any race with a +2 racial modifier to exchange that modifier for a feat at 1st level. That would mean that using point buy any race can start with a 16 in any ability score that is deemed to be so crucial. And it would still leave those races with, say, +2...

That's where you stop making sense. "Here are the playable races in my campaign. Read about what they are like, and choose what you want to play." But you want to divorce what your PC race is from the reality of what that race is.

You do realise that you've proved my point, right? Just go through the same logic where a player wants to play a Str-based halfling but who is stuck with +2 Dex and no bonus to Str. The conversation works out the same way. You can throw your points into Str and play the strongest halfling you...

Coming from 3e, where there is no cap on ability scores, when I first read the 5e PHB where it said that the max score is 20, my first thought was, "Max of 20.....modified by racial bonuses, right? So max Str for half-orcs is 22, right?" That would make sense. The strongest possible orc should...

"Okay DM, in your game world, what race is the strongest race that is allowed for PCs?" "Among the playable races in my world, goliaths are the strongest." "I want as strong a PC as I can, so I'll play a goliath. What bonus do I get to my Str score for being a goliath?" "None. PC goliaths are...

It's like your saying that choosing to play a strong race should have no bearing at all on the Str of your PC. Like a goliath PC, just because they are a PC, isn't really a goliath. For me, player character dwarves (or whatever) are still dwarves. Your attitude (and that rule) suggests that...

Why is it fair that 1st level halflings can be so much stronger than average halflings, but goliaths are not allowed to be an equal amount stronger than average goliaths? I don't think it's unfair that things make sense.

"Reality is the thing we should laugh at"? Should we laugh at internal coherence too? Should we pursue a game where nothing makes sense!

Yeah, that's my point! Chimps are physiologically stronger than humans! In D&D, that would be represented as giving chimp PCs +2 Str. That would not mean that every chimp is stronger than every human, but it would mean that chimps as a race/species are stronger than humans. Bingo! The...