Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6766632" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think IAB has a fairly narrow view of what is rules.To me, it seems clear that a longsword being a bladed weapon is not just "fluff". It's a rule, which interacts with a host of other rules (eg rules for dealing slashing damage; rules for purchasing equipment; rules for encumbrance; etc).Contrast the traditional description of gnomes as having large noses. That's not a rule; it's mere colour. It doesn't interact with any of the game systems. (Except in 3E if the optional rule for gnomes buying Scent as a feat is in use.)In the 1st ed AD&D PHB, that monks live in monasteries is a rule, related to the rule for level progression, for gaining followers and building a monastery, etc. But in 5e I don't see that it is a rule at all - there are no game systems that relate to or depend upon it. It's mere colour.Well, I wrote each out in one sentence. Of course they don't have any richer description! I don't think being taught martial arts by an intelligent magical animal is empty colour at all. I think it's pretty rich colour that establishes a host of backstory opportunities.I've never had a PC with that backstory in my game, but I have GMed a game where one of the PCs was believed (at the start of the campaign) to be a fox who had willed itself into human form as part of a program of self-improvement, but who then turned out (as per further backstory development by the player) to be one of the heavenly animal lords banished to earth for wrongdoing. That backstory played a significant role in driving the campaign.Mechanically, the PC in question was a hengeyokai ranger/ninja. It wouldn't have in any way improved the game, though, to insist that the player stick to the standard backstories for these PC building elements.</blockquote>

Verification