Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8516358" data-attributes="member: 18">Where then? I didn't see any real difference between the arguments here and on /r/dndnext and Twitter, except more people supported change in those latter two.Pick whether you're going to engage in whataboutery or dismiss it. You can't rationally do both.I don't know if I really agree that they are, because trying to say &quot;lateral thinking isn't reasoning&quot; is incredibly tortured thinking, frankly. Smarter people are better at lateral thinking, period. It's not even an argument. I guess it's beside the point though, because they're not a D&amp;D race, and nobody is assessing them as such.I think it's a relevant angle with some races where D&amp;D was ending up in a gross place, but I think it's only a key issue when negative stuff is asserted (like mental stat penalties and/or universal negative personality traits), but yeah I don't think it's a broad issue. I think people talked about it because the worst stuff 5E was doing with races involved it.But the actual usage of the stat is absolutely not consistent with the brief blurbs 5E offers, nor with the more complex explanations previous editions offered. And pretending previous editions don't matter is incompatible with stuff like claiming 1E was attempting verisimilitude. And indeed your entire issue is reliant on it having been done differently in the past.&quot;Only&quot;? No, I didn't say that, did I?But balance is why you can change races like this but not classes. It's not very complicated.I disagree I guess, and it's particularly not a great match to previous editions.It doesn't actually follow in a fantasy setting that a Halfling should be weaker than a human. They already have &quot;chimp strength&quot;. They should have less leverage and reach. But leverage and reach are not well-represented by ASIs - they're better represented by specific size-related rules.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8516358, member: 18"] Where then? I didn't see any real difference between the arguments here and on /r/dndnext and Twitter, except more people supported change in those latter two. Pick whether you're going to engage in whataboutery or dismiss it. You can't rationally do both. I don't know if I really agree that they are, because trying to say "lateral thinking isn't reasoning" is incredibly tortured thinking, frankly. Smarter people are better at lateral thinking, period. It's not even an argument. I guess it's beside the point though, because they're not a D&D race, and nobody is assessing them as such. I think it's a relevant angle with some races where D&D was ending up in a gross place, but I think it's only a key issue when negative stuff is asserted (like mental stat penalties and/or universal negative personality traits), but yeah I don't think it's a broad issue. I think people talked about it because the worst stuff 5E was doing with races involved it. But the actual usage of the stat is absolutely not consistent with the brief blurbs 5E offers, nor with the more complex explanations previous editions offered. And pretending previous editions don't matter is incompatible with stuff like claiming 1E was attempting verisimilitude. And indeed your entire issue is reliant on it having been done differently in the past. "Only"? No, I didn't say that, did I? But balance is why you can change races like this but not classes. It's not very complicated. I disagree I guess, and it's particularly not a great match to previous editions. It doesn't actually follow in a fantasy setting that a Halfling should be weaker than a human. They already have "chimp strength". They should have less leverage and reach. But leverage and reach are not well-represented by ASIs - they're better represented by specific size-related rules. [/QUOTE]

Verification