Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="UngeheuerLich" data-source="post: 8090099" data-attributes="member: 59057">I totally agree, and that is what I said in my first post. I was just quoted out of context and this post was a followup. So again. I never would even consider adding a sex based penalty into my game as much as I won´t enforce my players to tell me that they have to go peeing. That is too much reality in my game. I can´t see a reason and I´d never picture it in my head that a female character is anything less than a male character. Same goes for any diverse person.And I would never allow sexual harassment at my table inside or outside the game.And still I stand my point: the species based penalties and bonuses back then were just an easy mathematical way to make dwarves on average (not individually) sturdier than humans on average (not individually). Note that averages never allow to make assumptions about a certain person, but that goes without saying... or should go without saying...I also repeating for the 3rd time if I counted right, that I think species specific traits (a la 4e) are a more current approach to convey, what a certain species biological qualities offer.We could also ditch that, but as I said in a different thread, there is a point where you should just stop playing DnD which is a species and class based game. If you want total freeform (as default at least) you should consider a different game. If you do that, you should also switch to a game that does not reward players for killing other sentient beings. That actually is a thing I really want to be revised in 5e, with achievement based experience or as in the most recent adventures, quest based leveling (I would prefer quest based XP though). Here you could also look at 4e, but some things didn´t make it into 5e, just because it was invented in 4e. I hope 6e has enough distance frome 4e to also include things that were done well in retrospect.</blockquote>

Verification