Search results

Why would I replace it with a word that has a different meaning? Stop trying to take offence where none is intended.

The only people similar to real world people in fantasy games are the same species, humans.

Well you can read it two ways, one the DM doesn't need to allow any hybrids, unless they want to. But also any hybrid combo is possible, if you like so don't feel restricted to just mixing humans with orcs and elves.

The Children of Different Humanoid Kinds literally starts. "Thanks to the magical workings of the multiverse" - They are making it clear different species are only having children due to magic, it's not something that normally happens.

Look if you want to try breeding with dolphins or gorillas that's up to you, but personally "species should stick to their own kind" isn't that offensive.

Well I've always played "race" as species (using the old meaning of the word), so half-races were always infertile which it makes it hard for them to develop a independent society. Remember in D&D race means species. There are no mixed-species people you would be taking human-gorilla crosses...

Not sure what you are suggesting, I mean WotC have changed the game, several times already. What's your point?

I agree in the first case, but not in the second. I think it actually aids storytelling if the hobbits, are weaker than the dwarves and the humans, and the elves are more dexterous.

Actually my first thoughts of sexual dimorphism tend to be of angler fish, and just how drastic they can be in nature. So yeah why not reflect that with stats. Starfinder has dimorphism with it's alien races (with stat adjustments) and seems to get away with it. "All lashuntas gain +2 Charisma...

Because bringing it back would likely annoy some people, even if it was for fantasy no-human races. I mean I wouldn't have a problem, but some people would, hence "contentious".

Yes and if the peak male halfling and a peak male goliath can have the same stats, you might as well have a peak minotaur or peak dragon also be limited to 20 STR. So it's not exactly the best justification. Still removing sexual dimorphism it stats was a good thing, because it reflects the...

I'm just recalling the stink that came about when new comers to the D&D discovered that was a thing briefly. To say introducing sexual dimorphism isn't likely to be an issue seems unlikely. Considering how it has been viewed in the past.

So you'd be fine giving a Strength bonus to male human characters?

Yeah because god forbid we reflect reality, where many species have sexual dimorphism. Yeah but it really wouldn't make sense for a solider ant to try and do the job of say a farmer one would it or the reverse.

Hmm considering having dimorphic male/female is contentious to say the least... But yeah I'd really like to see some dimorphic or polymorphic races, anything that isn't humans with a different skin, which seems to be what WotC is determined to turn all races into.

Because the core game has generally had a default setting.

Not many people have which was their point. "Affected by" not wiped out. There are considerably less farriers around now. Same with the other professions mentioned.

I'm not saying they represent a particular real world group of people, I'm saying real world people can see parallels with the experiences of fantasy races. Thus find representation.

Well drow were also called out at being subject to racism, tieflings too, animosity between elves and dwarves use to be a thing, the problem is they keep sanitizing everything so yes they end up being the only ones, but only because they have already white washed everything else.

Because it unfortunately reflects reality, thus it gives representation to those real world groups. Allow it to apply to every race is diminishes the real world experiences of people that are actually born to two different heritages. The prejudice happens because of coming from two heritages...