Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 8516381" data-attributes="member: 7025508">I think we are agreement in here that issue is some specific combinations of mechanical features, especially along with questionable fiction, not the concept of fantasy species having differing capabilities in itself. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f44d.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt="(y)" title="Thumbs up&nbsp; &nbsp; (y)"&nbsp; data-smilie="22"data-shortname="(y)" />I'd like to point out that I did not bring up 1e, I merely briefly commented an example you brought up. And my argument has really nothing to do with the past, except insomuch that at the beginning of 5e they did things more in the way I prefer than they're doing now. As for ability descriptions not being consistent with mechanics, I feel they're consistentish, but of course there is a lot of simplification and abstraction in a game like this.But of course the changes to races affect balance too. Like how in previously you couldn't combine the dwarven armour proficiency (useful to casters) with optimised casting stat, but now you can. Furthermore, I really see no significant difference between swapping racial features and swapping class features. In either case what the character ends up with is changed.Yes, in fantasy you can justify anything. But if you use that that flexibility of fantasy to justify why everything has identical capabilities in everything despite drastically different sizes and physiologies then that to me is an utter waste.And yeah, I agree that the size should affect more things and there should be more rules keyed to it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crimson Longinus, post: 8516381, member: 7025508"] I think we are agreement in here that issue is some specific combinations of mechanical features, especially along with questionable fiction, not the concept of fantasy species having differing capabilities in itself. (y) I'd like to point out that I did not bring up 1e, I merely briefly commented an example you brought up. And my argument has really nothing to do with the past, except insomuch that at the beginning of 5e they did things more in the way I prefer than they're doing now. As for ability descriptions not being consistent with mechanics, I feel they're consistentish, but of course there is a lot of simplification and abstraction in a game like this. But of course the changes to races affect balance too. Like how in previously you couldn't combine the dwarven armour proficiency (useful to casters) with optimised casting stat, but now you can. Furthermore, I really see no significant difference between swapping racial features and swapping class features. In either case what the character ends up with is changed. Yes, in fantasy you can justify anything. But if you use that that flexibility of fantasy to justify why everything has identical capabilities in everything despite drastically different sizes and physiologies then that to me is an utter waste. And yeah, I agree that the size should affect more things and there should be more rules keyed to it. [/QUOTE]

Verification