Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MoogleEmpMog" data-source="post: 3719774" data-attributes="member: 22882">Here's the thing I strongly dislike - the same thing I strongly dislike about Sean K. Reynolds's 'err as far on the side of caution as can be reasonably construed as playable, than add 1' LA assignment theory:I want monstrous PCs of the races I consider PC-appropriate, not those Andy (or any other design) considers appropriate.To whit:In an Ivalice game set at the time of Final Fantasy Tactics, skeletons, ghosts, minotaurs, goblins and mind flayers are appropriate PC races (along with humans), whereas elves, orcs, dwarves and gnomes are not.I'm willing to bet at least two of those (ghosts and mind flayers) are not &quot;PC-appropriate&quot; by the standards Andy is talking about, and skeletons (if their being awakened is touched on at all) won't be, either.&nbsp; Minotaurs have been implied to not be PC-usable out of the Monster Manual, too.&nbsp; That means I would have to houserule in fully two-thirds of the playable races!In a Dragonlance game, draconians (baaz and kapaks, at least), hobgoblins, goblins, minotaurs and centaurs are appropriate PC races, as, arguably, are ogres, half-ogres and high (Irda) ogres.&nbsp; You could make a pretty strong case for dragons, too.&nbsp; Yet I'd wager minotaurs, centaurs, Irda and draconians won't be playable out of the gate (to be fair, I'd wager Irda and draconians won't appear at all), and ogres probably won't be, either.&nbsp; That's three almost guaranteed Monster Manual races that would need houseruling, and three that probably would have to be redone from scratch - not counting dragons.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MoogleEmpMog, post: 3719774, member: 22882"] Here's the thing I strongly dislike - the same thing I strongly dislike about Sean K. Reynolds's 'err as far on the side of caution as can be reasonably construed as playable, than add 1' LA assignment theory: I want monstrous PCs of the races [U]I[/U] consider PC-appropriate, not those Andy (or any other design) considers appropriate. To whit: In an Ivalice game set at the time of Final Fantasy Tactics, skeletons, ghosts, minotaurs, goblins and mind flayers are appropriate PC races (along with humans), whereas elves, orcs, dwarves and gnomes are not. I'm willing to bet at least two of those (ghosts and mind flayers) are not "PC-appropriate" by the standards Andy is talking about, and skeletons (if their being [I]awakened[/I] is touched on at all) won't be, either. Minotaurs have been implied to not be PC-usable out of the Monster Manual, too. That means I would have to houserule in fully two-thirds of the playable races! In a Dragonlance game, draconians (baaz and kapaks, at least), hobgoblins, goblins, minotaurs and centaurs are appropriate PC races, as, arguably, are ogres, half-ogres and high (Irda) ogres. You could make a pretty strong case for dragons, too. Yet I'd wager minotaurs, centaurs, Irda and draconians won't be playable out of the gate (to be fair, I'd wager Irda and draconians won't appear at all), and ogres probably won't be, either. That's three almost guaranteed Monster Manual races that would need houseruling, and three that probably would have to be redone from scratch - not counting dragons. [/QUOTE]

Verification