Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tonguez" data-source="post: 8886438" data-attributes="member: 1125">if each of the races had been limited to say four entries each it would have been much more even and would allow the flavor to be showcased without getting the bloat from which the game currently suffers. One of the biggest criticisms of 3e was feat bloat, but in reality the proliferation of subraces is exactly the same thing in disguise. The number of elf subraces has been a joke for a long time, but its only with newer editions that the same mistake in race design has started to spread - 10 tieflings is ridiculous when the differences are superficial (a choice of free cantrip), dragonborn are largely the same except for a single feat, only gem dragons being telepaths need a seperate entry.  Humans might have had the same number of types as Dragonborn, but humans disappeared early so I’m not sure theres much comparison possible (plus I dont think Dragonmarks count anyway). Notably there were 4 kinds of dwarfs, gnomes, genasi and shifters, kinds that lasted for quite some timeThe beauty of custom lineage (and variant human before it) is that it recognises that players are creative, 10 canonised teiflings restricts creativity, instead of allowing me to craft my own individual vision of the archetypes.of course I use to play GURPS and most recently have been playing FATE, so Im probably primed for such toolkit systems.</blockquote>