Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6315574" data-attributes="member: 42582">Because?I agree with [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] - this really has nothing to do with exception-based design, which is about interpreting mechanical elements. Eladrin toddlers aren't a mechanical element (at least until a GM chooses to introduce them) and hence don't stand in need of interpretation as such.If someone posted a thread complaining that, because of exception-based design and the absence of a stated exception human toddlers all move as fast as human adults and all speak at least two languages (even if not spoken by parents or guardians), would I be obliged to take that seriously?Frankly, people who treat PC-building rules as world-building rules are making rods for their own backs, and my sympathy is pretty limited. And in case it is objected that this is a 4e distinction, here is a passage from Dragon #35 (March 1980), referring to demi-human ability score maximums:The limitations given for races on the Ability Score Table are intended to apply to the entire race, not lust player characters. Therefore, several inconsistencies between the maximum scores and the player character racial adjustments are not mistakes. For example, although player character elves have a -1 on their constitution, the racial maximum for constitution of elves is 18. This is because, as explained in the Dungeon Master’s Guide, exceptional non-player elves may have a constitution of 18. Likewise, although it is impossible for a player character halfling to roll the maximum 19 constitution, a non-player halfling&nbsp; could, due to the bonus received on constitution for NPC halflings in the DMGIn other words, it has never been an assumption in D&amp;D world-building that the rules for creating player characters are models for the gameworld at large.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6315574, member: 42582"] Because? I agree with [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] - this really has nothing to do with exception-based design, which is about interpreting mechanical elements. Eladrin toddlers aren't a mechanical element (at least until a GM chooses to introduce them) and hence don't stand in need of interpretation as such. If someone posted a thread complaining that, because of exception-based design and the absence of a stated exception human toddlers all move as fast as human adults and all speak at least two languages (even if not spoken by parents or guardians), would I be obliged to take that seriously? Frankly, people who treat PC-building rules as world-building rules are making rods for their own backs, and my sympathy is pretty limited. And in case it is objected that this is a 4e distinction, here is a passage from Dragon #35 (March 1980), referring to demi-human ability score maximums: [indent]The limitations given for races on the Ability Score Table are intended to apply to the entire race, not lust player characters. Therefore, several inconsistencies between the maximum scores and the player character racial adjustments are not mistakes. For example, although player character elves have a -1 on their constitution, the racial maximum for constitution of elves is 18. This is because, as explained in the Dungeon Master’s Guide, exceptional non-player elves may have a constitution of 18. Likewise, although it is impossible for a player character halfling to roll the maximum 19 constitution, a non-player halfling could, due to the bonus received on constitution for NPC halflings in the DMG[/indent] In other words, it has never been an assumption in D&D world-building that the rules for creating player characters are models for the gameworld at large. [/QUOTE]

Verification