Search results

What if the group includes some people who do have a reference point and others who don't?

Yeah, it seems to me a case of concept creep. There are a few areas of bioessentialism that are genuinely issues--primarily orcs, and more generally anything with a modification to INT, and to a lesser extent CHA and WIS. And then there are the physical things, which are relatively minor in...

Agreed

This is explicitly contradicted by the text of 5e24. In that edition, the commoner statblock is used for bog-standard NPCs, is used for all species, and has 10s across the board.

Is there any text in 5e24 that supports this interpretation? Or 5e14? It seems to me most of the posters here have reference to older material that did have these differences, and so read that in to the new material. But I'm not so sure that a new reader will reach the same conclusion.

Many AL players have started in just the past few years. They are also the ones who, if you told them about 'halfling rogues' or 'elf wizards', would look at you funny.

From my time as an AL GM: the diversity of builds pre-Tasha was noticeably greater than post-Tasha. The introduction of new power options like the Twilight Cleric crowded out any benefits from interesting species/class choices. Ime.

Are "halfling rogues, elf wizards, dwarf clerics" and the like even types any more? I run AL games and at least for people who have come into the hobby post-Tashas's, it doesn't seem that way.

Also yes?

Ok? The point was that no one was thinking of dwarf sorcerers when the CHA penalty was introduced. Multiple people said that was wrong...but it is clearly correct.

Yes?

"These ideas" from Micah refers to to the CHA penalty, as I read it. Dwarves had that back in AD&D 1e. At that point the Dwarf Sorcerer wasn't on the menu.

The fact that some differences exist does not imply adding more differences is not an issue.

I didn't say it ought to be an official rule. I've already said I think it shouldn't be. But there are tradeoffs.

In that case you know that the limit is not imposed by the world, so the act of playing against type loses its salience.

I read the subject of dispute as about things like "should halflings have a STR penalty". That seems fine with LotR to me. Likewise class restrictions, like "Frodo has to be a fighter or a thief", or species-as-class, like "Frodo will use the halfling class". I think most people here would not...

This example doesn't work for me; isn't the point of Frodo taking the ring require that he his less fit for adventuring and ruling than Aragorn?

I think having very different feeling species is fun. But people take real world inspiration for their cultures all the time. And it is more common to get 1 species = 1 culture rather than a diverse set of cultures for each species. E.g., "in my world, dwarves live up north and are inspired by...

There's a fun one from the 1920s. Otto Warburg, a future Nobel Laureate, needed some money for cancer research. The proposal, in full, says "I require 10,000 Marks". I recall he had an in with the funding committee.