Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="drnuncheon" data-source="post: 1069814" data-attributes="member: 96">Bryon,I have to admit the same confusion as Tsyr.  I don't understand how a fellow player saying something about a giant's Wis bonus equals races being tied together in the game.  If there's a better, more apt example, then perhaps that one could be used?  If I understand you right, perhaps the Verrik's Charisma penalty?  That certainly talks about 'race relations', in that it's there because most other races find Verrik unsettling.On the other hand, it's the same thing that you get in regular D&D with dwarves - other races find them "gruff and reserved".  That's not really tying them in to other races, since you could easily transplant one to the other's setting and be able to assume that the AU races would also find dwarves "gruff and reserved" and elves and halflings would find verrik unsettling.Maybe I'm haring off on the wrong track here, especially since you originally said "one of the Council of Magisters was praising the Wis progression of giants as helping define their nature."  That statement to me doesn't seem to have any relation to the current debate, because that sounds to me like it's only about giants and their nature, and not their relationships with other races.  (The con bonus of dwarves and the dex bonus of elves helps define their nature, too, after all!)  I suspect that one of us is misinterpreting - can you provide the original source for that?  Is there context that I am missing that would tie it more firmly to the firmly ingrained racial relations that you see in AU?In any case, I'm not offended by you having an opinion.  Puzzled, maybe, because you obviously came to very different conclusions than I did.  Worried that you might be giving other people the wrong impression about AU, definitely - because I like it a lot, and I wouldn't want to see people not buying it because they read a bunch of negative stuff about it that was based on personal preferences and not facts, even though it sounds like it's based on facts.In other words, saying "I don't like the akashic" is fine.  Saying "the akashic doesn't fit into my game" is fine.  Saying "the akashic is not compatible"?  That's BS.J</blockquote>

Verification