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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6136383" data-attributes="member: 2067">The idea isn't necessarily to include all the rules up front, but rather to be careful not to exclude the things that have come before. The important thing is to leave room for addition. So we don't define halflings, for instance, as one thing. We define them as manifold. They're showing signs of thinking like this in the playtest docs, too. Subraces help resolve this dichotomy nicely: hobbits are a type of halfling, gypsies are a type of halfling, kender are a type of halfling, wild cannibals are a type of halfling...they're all halflings. And that doesn't define the limits of halfling, but rather simply the beginning, what they have been throughout D&D. The subraces allow plenty of room for new or specific types of halflings. In the first appearance, you might get two types (say, kender and hobbits), but it should be crystal clear that these aren't THE halfling types, they're only two of the INFINITE halfling types. They're two items on the menu. I'd even advocate for the initial mention of halflings to explicitly acknowledge halfling types they aren't giving stats for, to whet the appetite and inspire DMs.Contradiction goes gently against the idea of maximal lore, because it invalidates other lore. Wherever possible, in seeking to be maximal, the idea is that ideas shouldn't HAVE to be invalidated. So hobbits don't contradict the existence of cannibal halflings -- the two could even exist side by side. Planescape lore is no more important than any other lore, but it is just as important -- it doesn't need to be directly served, but it shouldn't be contradicted, where possible, due to the idea of maximizing the possible lore that a given game can draw from.And Planescape hasn't had it since at least 2008, and isn't likely to get it again.</blockquote>

Verification